I do think moral philosophy is part of Gobert's demise, but the philosophy moral governance pertains to the FIM drug testing policies, which ultimately started Gobert down the slippery slope to societal pariah. The FIM adopted a drug policy that made no improvements to the sport (spectacle, profit, or safety). On the contrary, the hardline policy regarding marijuana usage put the sport in a position to suffer. The FIM should have explained to the fans, sponsors, teams, and television personnel the realities of hiring imperfect individuals, the purpose of drug testing policy, and the need for policy reform. Instead, the FIM simply burned Gobert at the stake b/c it was convenient, and the rules created the illusion that the FIM had the moral high ground. There was no reason to dismiss Gobert. No moral paradigm compelled his dismissal b/c no one else had been injured or wronged. No economic paradigm compelled Gobert's dismissal b/c he could not be replaced. Perhaps, insurance costs could be quoted, but then, those costs could easily have been put directly on Gobert himself. Perhaps the economics of insurance would have taught him to steer clear of weed.
But the real problem, imo, is much bigger than Gobert or WSBK. Individuals are taught personnel responsibility in all situaitons b/c it is the only way. We simply can't sit around and wait on decency from our fellow human beings. We take our lumps and we move on, hopefully without a massive chip on our shoulder. Unfortunately, I feel that the doctrine of personal responsibility encourages society to affirm the consequent. Gobert must be held 100% repsonsible for his actions; therefore, the FIM must not be to blame. Nothing could be farther from reality. Gobert is held 100% accountable b/c that is best for Gobert, but the FIM clearly had policies that put the sport and its competitors in jeopardy. The FIM chopped down a Redwood tree to harvest the lumber or they cut a channel in the Great Barrier Reef to make a better beach break (or whatever analogy you like). Why? B/c they created rules that served rulesmakers, not a greater good. This is a theme as old as human history. Jesus vs. the Pharisees. The English peasants vs. King John (Magna Carta). Thousands more examples could be listed.
A man's career was ruined b/c he was convicted of a victimless crime. The employment decisions of a multinational corporation were usurped by a not-for-profit club. For sport, Gobert now robs pensioners, rather than racing motorcycles. The FIM look the other way as if they never even knew him, and they pretend that nothing great has been lost. I find that kind of cowardice and short-sightedness from leadership personnel to be far more detestable than Gobert's apparent lack of self-control. If Gobert can lose everything b/c he failed in his abstract repsonsibilities to society, the FIM personnel should be held to the same standard. That's the egalitarian equity that is lacking in the story of Anthony Gobert.
