The best example of the ethical problem with the Star Syndrome, the expedient and destructive compromise organizations make to allow a high-level performer break rules and indulge in conduct that would not be tolerated in other employees, that I have seen in a long time involves…a horse.
California Chrome has won the first two races in the Triple Crown, with only the Belmont Stakes remaining. Horse racing hasn’t had a Triple Crown winner in decades, and has suffered as a result; everyone is rooting for its latest star to finally achieve the heights last reached by Affirmed in 1978. But CC used a nasal strip in his last six races, all victories, and while the devices, which aid breathing, are allowed by the racing rules of all states but one, New York, home of the Belmont, is the one. The owners of the horse say they may not run him if he isn’t allowed to use the strip (they are almost certainly bluffing, but its a good bluff); a request for an exception is pending.
The ethics here is simple as pie. If its a valid rule, then no exception should be made just because the horse in question is on the verge of making history. If it was an arbitrary rule, it should have been eliminated before now. If the stewards allow California Chrome to use the strip because, well, he’s a big shot and it will be a shot in the arm for racing, but then go back to prohibiting ordinary horses to use it, that will be an outright rejection of fairness and integrity (not that this will be news flash for racing critics.).
If the rule was a good one in the first place, then it should apply to California Chrome. Waiving it just for him is favoritism, and unethical.
That, however, is exactly what will happen. Watch.
Ethics Alarms 
Could be worse.
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Drunk-drivers-light-sentence-triggers-protest-in-Olympia-259543311.html
http://iacknowledge.net/judge-gives-rich-man-arrested-for-7th-dui-no-jail-time-because-it-wouldnt-be-fair-for-him/
We shall stipulate that the Star Syndrome is indeed worse in effect when applied to a human than to a horse.
Affirmed.
And between them, Seattle Slew
Rick and Tim: So glad you corrected that historical note. But see below for my real comment.
Whirlaway?
Dumb. I was in a rush on the road, wanted to get a post up before I was closeted all day, and checked everything but that. Note that I didn’t put up a photo, either…but to make amends, now have Affirmed.
Update: http://www.aol.com/article/2014/05/19/california-chrome-cleared-to-wear-nasal-strip/20888246/
California Chrome has been allowed to wear the bloody thing.
That said, if that article is correct, your analysis isn’t — the rule isn’t what you stated.
What it seems is that New York has a rule against using any equipment not specifically approved — and that nose strips hadn’t (yet) made the list. The stewards simply added them, without really changing the rules.
And if I seem frustrated by the matter, it has more to do with the use of nasal strips in the first place and my general annoyance with unsupported medical claims than with anything else.
That’s spin. Other horses had been prevented from wearing them, so it had the same impact as a ban. And as the only hold-out, New York’s decision was clearly intentional, and the equivalent of a ban. I watched two features on the controversy (CNN and ESPN) and both termed it a ban.
Huh. Well, that does change things, although I cannot for the life of me figure out why the Hell they’d actually ban the things. (Not that this is at all relevant.)
Also, you inserted the “than with anything else” too early in the sentence when editing my earlier response. It should be the last clause of the sentence.
Sorry…I’ll fix that.
Not a problem. 🙂
However, if the rule is now “Horses can use them, period” I can’t get too worked up.
If the ruling is “this horse can use them, but no others after that” then we have a problem…
I think changing the rule as soon as a big shot finds it inconvenient may marginally better than making a one-time exception for the big shot, but they are both integrity breaches. If the law is valid, then its inconvenience to the “star” shouldn’t result in either repeal or a waiver.
Well, it shouldn’t take a “Star” or a possible rarity of a Triple Crown to prompt the reevaluation of the rule…
That’s right, and if the rule had any validity in the first place, those factors should be irrelevant.
Murder accusations notwithstanding, wasn’t it Oscar Pistorius who first made “Scientific American” magazine in an analysis of his “Flex-Foot Cheetah” prosthetic lower limbs, which “SA” judged that by their very construction the prosthetics allowed Pistorius to “use 25% less energy than natural runners?”
And wasn’t there a bit of a hue and cry from “natural runners” who felt Pistorius had an unfair advantage? And wasn’t there also a bit of a hue and cry that he should be allowed to run in the Olympics anyway, because “he had worked so hard all his life to achieve this objective?” So was it fair? Would he have done so well if these extra-special, bouncy, prosthetics were not invented? Who knows? But how does one judge that controversy? (All moot now that he’s going to be using them to bounce around prison, I suppose.)
I don’t suppose, Jack, that the Olympic Committee, when allowing Pistorius to use his special prosthetics had one, single thought about how exciting (and money-making) it would be for the Olympics to have an amputee run?