We can still have the best of both worlds

The problem with being a purist is that the best ingredients in an everchanging world will never stay the same. You might not like a new rule introduced to a sport, but if you don’t accept the official changes, you’re going to be left behind.

It’s a problem we all face. Every generation is horrified (mine justifiably so) by the cultural and social trends of both their ancestors and their offspring.

“In our day, we did things right. If you’re different, you’re wrong.”

And in a world which is changing so fast that we can’t keep up with ourselves, professional sport could be on the brink of a revolution.

If it happens, and the floodgates are opened, most of us won’t like. But our kids are gonna love it.

And at the centre of what could be the start of a new era for sport is a global brand which has proved it is less concerned about its public image than it is about the bottom line.

We can argue about the ethics of Nike, but if any company is going to get behind the sort of things that could turn professional sport on its head, it’s the one with the logo that suggests you should act first and think later.

Sure, the way things seem to be going is controversial at best and downright lunacy at worst, but before we fight it, let’s consider our options.

Some, for example, want running shoe manufacturers and swimsuit designers to use whatever means necessary to give competitors an edge, while others want strict rules preventing some individuals from having a significant technological advantage over others.

Some want banned substances cleared for use, as is evident by the number of athletes who are caught taking them, while others want anti-doping authorities to weed out the bad apples and keep sport clean.

Some want transgender athletes to compete against women, while others believe it is unfair to allow biological men to participate in the female division.

Perhaps we can have the best of both worlds.

What if we have a third division in competitive sport? One for biological men, another for biological women, and another open category with no rules.

A potential problem with that approach is that regulated sport with strict rules is only entertaining when a third option doesn’t exist.

Who is going to watch Usain Bolt run 100m in a little over nine seconds on one channel, when the next channel is broadcasting a race between a human-android hybrid and a mutant drug-fuelled beast?

Before I’m lambasted, I’m not comparing transgender athletes to mutant beasts.

But if we are to accept that change is inevitable then we must also accept that the rules will be adjusted.

Shoes and swimsuits will change, and they’re going to make them faster.

If we want athletes to stop taking performance enhancing drugs, it’s going to take an immense effort from the entire international sporting community.

And if we want transgender athletes to play fair, then decision-makers need to sit down and discuss a solution to a problem which isn’t going away, and find a place for them to compete.

Alternatively, we can just open the gate and have a world of sport with no rules, no restrictions and no divisions.

Either way, the inevitable disappointment in being a purist is that nothing stays the same.

You can argue, but the powers that control the purse strings are clearly not concerned about traditional values of sport, and sweeping changes look to be on the horizon.

Once they’ve found a way to make a profit, they won’t think twice about implementing new rules, whether we like it or not. They’ll just do it.