fancy bears actions were immoral but necessary

there is a need to reflect on everything that the supposed russian hackers 'fancy bears' have done. as you all likely know by now, a hack on wada resulted in a whole host of therapeutic use exemptions (tues) being released to the public. a number of high profile athletes were implicated in the released tues, including american and british olympic champions.

there is clearly ethical and moral implications of this situation, and we must be careful to address the nuances of such. firstly, the hack and release of these medical records has to be termed unethical, since when these athletes agreed to the terms of the arrangement with their sporting body and wada, there was a presumption that their records would remain confidential. this hack is obviously a violation of that agreement and the athletes trust.

it is also the case however, that although the hack was unethical, it was also perhaps necessary. by this i mean that in order for sport to address the issues around doping, there is a need for transparency. what may result from this is the recognition by wada and sports bodies, that by making tues public, athletes will be both held responsible and avoid unnecessary scrutiny. for example, simone biles tue showed that she required a medication for her adhd - a responsible and intended use for a tue. this is in contrast to the tues granted to bradley wiggins, which, at the very least looks suspiciously like sanction doping.

in summary then, perhaps this hack will inspire wada to reconsider their stance on making tues publicly available. if athletes or unions aren't agreeable to this (which they likely will not be), they have the right to not compete or withdraw consent. but unfortunately, until a solution is proposed that allows athletes to keep medical records confidential, this may be a necessary step to protect the integrity of sport for future generations.