From Chivalrous ‘Brothers-in-Arms’ to the Eligible Athlete
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through an examination of the challenges to the original, fundamental principles of the Olympic Movement during the post-Second World War era, and the eventual abandonment of those principles, this study poses questions concerning the legitimacy of the IOC’s current bannedsubstance list and policies. Using primary and secondary historical evidence, this article establishes the original, fundamental principles upon which Pierre de Coubertin revived the Olympic Games, and then traces the events which, in 1974 — the year the athlete eligibility code was significantly revised in the Olympic Charter — overturned those principles and ushered in the current era of commercialized and professionalized, world class, high performance sport. Significant events in elite sportduring the ‘cold war’ years from the early 1950s to the mid-1970s created a growing emphasis onperformance and performance enhancement such that substance use — steroids in particular — became common in the East and the West. It is argued that while substance prohibition was consistent with de Coubertin’s original principles, the 1974 change to Rule 26 of the Olympic Charter, and the reasons for that change, removed the central principles upon which the list of banned substances could be founded and justified, thereby legitimately opening the banned substance list to question. Inpresenting this history, the article presents a strong case for a thorough, non-partisan review of the IOC’s policy on performance-enhancing substances in world class, high performance sport.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it