Technology, performance enhancement, ethics and equity: HSC Health and Movement Science Focus Area 2

A 5-mark evaluate needs the advantage, the access gap, the regulatory response, and a judgement.

The advantage

Carbon-plate shoes improve running economy by roughly $1$ to $4\%$ for trained runners, worth substantial marathon time.

The access gap

Initially expensive (around AUD 350+), so well-funded athletes accessed them first while developing-nation and amateur athletes lagged.

The regulation

World Athletics capped stack height (2020) and required commercial availability, narrowing but not closing the gap.

Judgement

Conclude that the technology created a real equity problem that regulation has partly addressed; the issue recurs with any new technology between market entry and broad access.

Markers reward (1) the quantified advantage, (2) the access gap, (3) the regulatory response and a calibrated judgement.

A 5-mark response needs the principle defined plus a reasoned fairness discussion.

Strict liability

The athlete is responsible for any prohibited substance in their body regardless of how it got there, which closes the unenforceable "I did not know" defence.

The case for fairness

Without it, anti-doping policy could not function, and athletes are expected to use batch-tested products.

The case against

It can punish athletes who took reasonable precautions, and verification is not universally available; tribunals may reduce sanctions for no significant fault.

Judgement

Conclude that the principle is necessary for the system but produces hard cases like this one.

Markers reward (1) the principle defined, (2) arguments both ways, (3) a calibrated judgement.

Any three, each with a correct measurement:

• GPS unit / accelerometer measures distance, speed and accelerations/decelerations (external load).
• Heart-rate / HRV monitor measures heart rate and heart-rate variability (internal load and recovery).
• Force plate measures ground reaction force during jumps, sprints or lifts (neuromuscular readiness, asymmetry).
• Video / biomechanical analysis software captures technique and tactics for frame-by-frame review.

Marking criteria: 1 mark for each correctly named LEGAL monitoring technology paired with a correct measurement (max 3). Naming EPO or anabolic steroids earns nothing here - those are prohibited substances, not monitoring tools.

External load is the physical work the athlete performs (distance, speed, accelerations) measured by a GPS unit/accelerometer. Internal load is the body's physiological response to that work (heart rate, HRV, perceived exertion) measured by a heart-rate/HRV monitor.

A coach needs both because the same external load produces different internal responses depending on fitness, fatigue, illness or heat: two players who both ran 8 km can have very different heart-rate and HRV responses, so external numbers alone can hide that one player is under-recovering.

Marking criteria: 1 mark external load defined + a correct technology; 1 mark internal load defined + a correct technology; 2 marks for explaining why both are needed (same external load, different internal response / individualisation). A bare list of devices with no external-vs-internal distinction caps at 2.

How a legal technology becomes an equity issue. The shoes are lawful, but they confer a measurable advantage (about 1 to 4 percent running economy, roughly 1 to 3 minutes over a marathon). When first released (around 2017) they retailed at AUD 350+, so well-funded athletes and national programs accessed them first while developing-nation, school and amateur runners could not. The advantage is therefore distributed by funding, not talent - so the result partly reflects who could afford the shoe, undermining fair competition.

A regulatory response. World Athletics (2020) capped road-shoe stack height at 40 mm, limited shoes to a single plate, and required the shoe to be commercially available before use in competition. The availability rule directly attacks the inequity: an athlete cannot race in a secret prototype that no rival can buy, which narrows (without fully closing) the access gap until prices fall.

Marking criteria: 1 mark for the quantified advantage; 1 mark for linking advantage + cost to unequal ACCESS; 1 mark for stating that the result then reflects funding not talent (fairness); 1 mark for a correct regulatory response; 1 mark for explaining HOW it reduces inequity. "Technology is unfair" with no mechanism caps at 2.

Two issues from the privacy/welfare side (not doping):

• Data privacy and consent. Continuous biometric, location and sleep data is sensitive personal information. Players may feel unable to refuse collection if it affects selection, and the data could later inform contract, insurance or trade decisions. Who owns, stores and can re-use the data is often unclear, and a data breach exposes private health information.
• Surveillance and autonomy. Constant monitoring (including sleep and off-field behaviour) can blur the line between professional management and intrusion into private life, shifting power toward the club and pressuring athletes to optimise every behaviour.

A strong answer notes a counter-weight: the same data, used transparently and with consent, can protect welfare by flagging under-recovery and reducing injury - so the issue is governance (consent, ownership, limits), not the technology itself.

Marking criteria: 1 mark each for TWO correctly identified ethical issues other than cheating (privacy/consent, surveillance/autonomy, data ownership, breach risk); up to 2 further marks for developing each with a sport-specific consequence; 1 mark for a balanced note that governance, not the device, is the lever. Listing without development caps at 2.

(a) Trend

Access rose for every technology from 2019 to 2024. The rises are: GPS +35 (60 to 95), force plates +45 (25 to 70), video +40 (45 to 85), altitude chambers +14 (8 to 22). So adoption is broadening and accelerating fastest for force plates and video, while remaining a minority technology for altitude chambers.

(b) Least accessible

Altitude chambers remain least accessible (only 22 percent in 2024). They are costly fixed infrastructure requiring dedicated space and maintenance, unlike a portable GPS pod, so they spread slowly.

(c) Equity implication

Even inside ONE well-funded institute, the most expensive, infrastructure-heavy technology is still rationed - so for under-funded programs and nations that cannot afford even GPS pods, the gap is far wider. As cheaper tools (GPS, video) become near-universal, competitive advantage migrates to the costliest tools (altitude, advanced analytics), so technology can perpetuate inequity even as overall access rises. (Dataset is illustrative.)

Marking criteria: (a) 2 marks - rising trend stated AND quantified with data. (b) 1 mark for naming altitude chambers + 1 mark for a sensible cost/infrastructure reason. (c) 2 marks for arguing the equity consequence (advantage migrates to the costliest tools / under-funded programs lag further). A description with no equity link caps at 4.

This is a 10-mark extended response. Markers reward a sustained, two-sided JUDGEMENT (assess the extent) anchored in named technologies and a framework of competing values, not a list.

Band 6 PLAN.

• Thesis (calibrated): technology advances performance substantially and, once openly regulated and widely available, can do so fairly; but in the gap between a technology's arrival and broad access it advances performance UNFAIRLY, distributing advantage by funding rather than talent - so the fairness is conditional on regulation and access, not automatic.
• Argument line 1 - the case FOR fair advancement: lawful monitoring (GPS, HRV, force plates, video analytics) improves training quality, manages load and reduces injury; once equipment such as carbon-plate shoes is commercially available and stack-height-capped, every athlete can use it, raising the standard for all. Regulation (World Athletics 2020; FINA's 2010 swimsuit ban) shows governing bodies can restore fairness.
• Argument line 2 - the case AGAINST: advantage is initially distributed by money. Carbon-plate shoes (about 1 to 4 percent economy) cost AUD 350+ at launch; altitude chambers and full sport-science support sit only in well-funded programs, so developing-nation, school and amateur athletes compete at a structural disadvantage. The 'technology versus talent' problem means results can reflect a budget, not ability.
• Argument line 3 - the newer ethical front: athlete data (continuous biometric, GPS, sleep) raises privacy, consent and surveillance issues, and consumer-grade sensors have validity/reliability limits, so a 'data advantage' is itself unevenly distributed and can be misused.
• Judgement (the 'extent'): technology advances performance to a large extent, but advances it FAIRLY only to the extent that it is (1) openly regulated and (2) accessibly priced; the fairness lags the performance gain, so the honest verdict is 'substantial advancement, conditional fairness'.

Model paragraph (equity line). The clearest threat to fairness is access. A carbon-plate shoe that improves running economy by roughly 1 to 4 percent is worth one to three minutes over a marathon, yet at launch it retailed above AUD 350 and reached well-funded athletes years before developing-nation runners. For that window the result reflected a budget as much as a physiology: two equally talented athletes were separated by who could buy the shoe. World Athletics' 2020 requirement that shoes be commercially available was a deliberate equity device - it cannot make every athlete rich, but it stops a funded athlete racing in a prototype no rival can obtain. The same pattern recurs with altitude chambers and analytics platforms, where the most decisive tools are precisely the ones the least-funded programs cannot afford, so each new technology reopens the access gap before falling prices slowly close it.

Marker's note: top-band answers (1) cover all three prompted areas - monitoring, equipment, ethics/equity; (2) sustain a two-sided argument and reach a CALIBRATED judgement on the 'extent' rather than a yes/no; (3) anchor claims with specific named technologies, a regulation with a year, and a quantified figure (1 to 4 percent; AUD 350+; 40 mm cap); and (4) keep answering the verb - ASSESS THE EXTENT means weigh how far and under what conditions, not describe. Distinguishing lawful technology from doping, and naming data-privacy as a current ethical front, mark out a strong response.

An 8-mark evaluate needs benefits, risks, and a judgement that weighs them.

Band 6 PLAN.

• Thesis: wearable/GPS monitoring is, on balance, a net positive for elite performance and welfare WHEN its data is valid and its use is governed, but it introduces real measurement and ethical risks that determine whether the benefit is realised.
• Benefits: objective external-load data (distance, speed, accelerations) plus internal-load data (heart rate, HRV, sleep) let staff individualise training, periodise load, detect under-recovery and reduce soft-tissue injury; analytics can model injury risk and inform return-to-play.
• Risks: validity/reliability - consumer sensors can be inaccurate and HRV is confounded by caffeine, illness and measurement conditions, so decisions on bad data can mislead; ethics - privacy, consent, surveillance and the use of biometric data in selection/contract decisions; equity - the best systems sit only in funded programs.
• Judgement: the technology improves performance and protects welfare to a significant degree, but only where data quality is verified and athlete data is governed by consent and clear ownership; ungoverned or over-trusted, it can mislead staff and erode athlete autonomy.

Model paragraph (risk line). The central risk is misplaced trust in the number. A wrist HRV reading can fall because an athlete drank coffee or slept in a warm room, not because they are over-trained, and consumer GPS pods carry their own error; if staff treat these readings as ground truth they may rest a fit athlete or push a fatigued one. This is a validity and reliability problem, the same scientific-investigation concern that applies to any measurement: the data must be calibrated, collected under standard conditions, and interpreted against the individual's baseline before it can guide a decision. Used that way the monitoring is powerful; used naively it manufactures false confidence.

Marker's note: top-band answers weigh BENEFITS against RISKS and judge; they name internal vs external load, raise validity/reliability (a scientific-investigation skill), and add the ethical/equity dimension rather than only listing benefits. A one-sided 'monitoring is good' answer caps in the middle bands.