Final answer:
The International Olympic Committee combats scandals by enhancing anti-doping regulations through WADA, improving transparency, and strict enforcement. Social and environmental issues are addressed through public relations and local collaborations. Concerning moral hazard in sports, increased padding may ironically lead to riskier behavior among athletes.
Step-by-step explanation:
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has faced a number of scandals throughout its history, including issues related to doping and the conditions at Olympic venues. To limit damage during recent scandals, the IOC has taken several measures.
The creation of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) in 1999 significantly enhanced the IOC's ability to regulate and enforce anti-doping policies. When the 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janeiro highlighted social stratification and poor environmental and living conditions, the situation called for public relations management and action from Olympic organizers to address international concerns.
Measures typically involve tightening regulations, increasing transparency, and implementing stricter controls and penalties for violations.To specifically address the issue of doping, drug testing was first implemented at the Olympic Games in 1968, with ongoing advancements in detection methods.
The IOC also banned performance-enhancing drugs way back in 1928 through its affiliate World Athletics, and it has consistently updated its list of prohibited substances to adapt to new pharmacological developments.
To combat the impressions of inequality and poor preparations as seen in Rio, public outreach and collaborations with local organizations are utilized to improve conditions and restore the image of the Games.
In terms of moral hazard in sports, especially when safety regulations requiring more padding were introduced in sports such as football and boxing, these can lead to a false sense of security among athletes.
Increased protective equipment might paradoxically result in athletes taking greater risks, anticipating that the padding will prevent serious injuries. This, in turn, could potentially lead to a higher incidence of dangerous behavior and possibly more injuries, contradicting the intended purpose of the regulations.