« I knew this would happen some day | Main | Knock on wood »

Ethics are for wimps

I read a few things about doping and "cheating" in sports that bugged me for about a week, but I couldn't really say why. Here are some excerpts from the NY Times article (click on "continue reading" if you want to see the whole thing):

Here's the problem: The confluence of scandals might suggest that sport has reached some shocking nadir, at which celebrity, commercialism, multimillion-dollar salaries, doping and bad behavior have won out over authenticity and integrity in the pursuit of athletic excellence. But has it, really?

Reasons why it's not a problem: The legitimacy of competition, after all, has repeatedly been cast into doubt for more than a century.

Professional sports are “entertainment, business, pure and simple” and scandal should come as no surprise..."the average person [doesn't care] that players are on steroids. I think they just want to see them hit the ball a mile out of the park.”

[I]t was time to acknowledge that the values taught in youth sport bore no resemblance to the values of elite sport...childhood values were ethical fungo drills, for practice only, not applicable between the lines of big time sport...

"Don’t give me any of that ‘Chariots of Fire’ stuff; cut the box of Wheaties bull...There’s nothing pure about it. The noble cause is all gone. These guys are entertainers, period, in the money sports. They’re not role models.”

I'm not a huge sports fan, but this bothers me. Maybe I'm one of very few -- the fact that sales of tickets to sporting events and viewership of sports events on TV have not declined with increased scandals suggests that most actual fans don't give a rat's ass. But it's not just about sports; the above reasoning say things about society as a whole that bug me: 1) entertainment is all about "spectacle" (balls hit out of the park, etc.) rather than something that requires thought, 2) cheating or dodgy performance enhancement has *always* been around so why whine about it, and 3) "fair play" and "good sportsmanship" are childlike values with no function in The Real World, especially The Real World of Business and Entertainment Where The Stakes are High.

While part of me is an unapologetic elitist who rolls her eyes and mutters "no one has ever gone broke underestimating the taste of the American public" when seeing previews of summer blockbusters or the proliferation of fast food restaurants and strip malls, the larger part of me believes -- or wants to believe - that people can and want to be challenged. Or am I being silly -- do sports fans in general genuinely prefer spectacular feats of brute strength and endurance over subtle demonstrations of skill and technique? Are they unmoved by the discipline and dedication it takes to perform at top levels?

In the end, I believe in the purity of sports and all other human endeavors. If people want nothing but spectacle, I don't give a fuck -- I think we all deserve more than that. I think that providing entertainment that requires thought is -- dare I say it -- good for us. I hate cynicism; often, it's nothing more than a lack of imagination. As someone who is trying to learn how to live after attempting to die, many things that are worthwhile are so because they're difficult. The journey there is an eye-opening wonder, and there is nothing like finally arriving at your destination completely transformed. Maybe those who argue that cheating doesn't matter and it's all just spectacle have never experienced that.

"The Deafening Roar of the Shrug." The New York Times, July 29, 2007.

AFTER so much attrition from doping, we could be forgiven for expecting the winning rider today in the Tour de France to be a 3-year-old on a tricycle who tests positive for nothing more ominous than apple juice.

Sport’s despairing week has brought another puncture to cycling’s credibility; Barry Bonds’s continued grim chase of baseball’s home run record; a game-fixing investigation of a professional basketball referee; and gruesome dog-fighting accusations against the Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick. Now a scorecard, a urine sample and sometimes even a police lineup are needed to keep up with the players.

“I’m not sure pro sports have had something this serious confront them in the last 50 years,” said Peter Roby, director of the Center for the Study of Sport in Society at Northeastern University, who has just been named the university’s athletic director.

The confluence of scandals might suggest that sport has reached some shocking nadir, at which celebrity, commercialism, multimillion-dollar salaries, doping and bad behavior have won out over authenticity and integrity in the pursuit of athletic excellence. But has it, really?

The legitimacy of competition, after all, has repeatedly been cast into doubt for more than a century. The American Thomas Hicks won the Olympic marathon in 1904 after taking strychnine to stave off exhaustion. College basketball had betting scandals in the 1950s; the N.F.L. had gambling problems in the 1960s; and the N.B.A. had a cocaine habit in the 1970s. Academic fraud persists in college sports. The carousel of corruption has never stopped spinning.

Yet, fans keep making accommodations. They rationalize, even persist in willful denial about the transgressions of their heroes, staying devoted to sport as entertainment and facilitator of moral development, however quaint that notion can seem.

Fans may be concerned about drugs in baseball, but not enough to stop buying tickets. In the steroid era, the major leagues remain on pace to set an attendance record for a fourth consecutive year. Bonds is often booed on the road over suspicions that his body has been corked like a bat, but his home runs still draw cheers.

“I’m sure people are saying this is the death knell of sports,” David Malloy, a sports ethicist at the University of Regina in Saskatchewan, said of the current scandals. “But it’s a coincidence these things happened at the same time. I’m sure fans are still going to come and watch.”

Professional sports are “entertainment, business, pure and simple” and scandal should come as no surprise, Malloy said, adding: “I don’t think the average person cares that players are on steroids. I think they just want to see them hit the ball a mile out of the park.”

The gambling scandal involving the referee Tim Donaghy seems more troubling.

“In terms of impacting integrity, you can’t get much more serious than gambling,” Roby said. “If people don’t trust the games are real, it’s tough to keep them interested. You don’t want them to be predetermined. The beauty of sport is that a 1-6 team can beat a 7-0 team, and you want to think that is legitimate.”

But in truth, we don’t always care that the fix is in. One of the most popular programs on cable television features the theatrical fakery of professional wrestling.

The only real outrage displayed by fans in recent days was not in regard to sport, but to the government’s charge that Vick helped operate a dog-fighting ring that killed underachieving animals by hanging, drowning and bashing them into the ground. Vick was jeered on Thursday as hundreds gathered outside a courthouse in Richmond, Va., for his arraignment. He pleaded not guilty.

“People are animal lovers; if you own an animal, something he did becomes a little more personal,” said Richard Lapchick, director of the Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport at the University of Central Florida.

While the world’s most famous bicycle race is now under threat, only the most naïve have considered cycling to be clean. It seems inhuman to ask athletes to pedal their bikes at great speed some 2,200 miles in three weeks, often up tortuous mountain passes, without chemical assistance.

Fausto Coppi of Italy, who won the Tour in 1949 and 1952, was once asked if he ever fueled himself with amphetamines.

“Only when necessary,” he said.

How often was that?

“Most of the time,” Coppi replied.

Jacques Anquetil of France, a five-time winner, once said with sarcasm, “Do they expect us to ride the Tour on Perrier water?”

History suggests that baseball should think twice before imposing stricter control on the use of performance-enhancing drugs. Cycling and track and field, the two sports that have tried most ambitiously to catch drug cheats, have suffered an unintended consequence, losing much of their credibility — and the cover of plausible deniability — by flagging many top stars.

“The reward for doing the right thing is being labeled as having a drug problem,” said Craig Masback, chief executive of USA Track & Field.

There is a small but seemingly growing movement to legalize banned performance-enhancing drugs. Given the widespread drug use in society, some say it is unfair to single out athletes for punishment. Why allow Viagra as a performance enhancer, but not steroids, the thinking goes.

“The minute you become an adult, you should have a choice of whatever you want to put into your body,” said Andrei Markovits, who teaches a course in comparative sports at the University of Michigan. Athletes doctor themselves with Lasik eye surgery and the so-called Tommy John elbow reconstruction surgery. Why not drugs? We can’t even agree on what an athlete should look like, given the hand-wringing about the South African sprinter Oscar Pistorius, who runs on prosthetic legs.

In an interview before his death in 2005, Steve Courson, a former lineman for the Pittsburgh Steelers and one of the first athletes to admit to steroid use, said it was time to acknowledge that the values taught in youth sport bore no resemblance to the values of elite sport. He suggested that childhood values were ethical fungo drills, for practice only, not applicable between the lines of big time sport, where athletes seek any edge they can get — from doping to stealing a catcher’s signs — and it isn’t considered cheating if you don’t get caught.

“Don’t give me any of that ‘Chariots of Fire’ stuff; cut the box of Wheaties bull,” said Charles Yesalis, a professor emeritus of health policy and kinesiology at Penn State University and a friend of Courson’s. “There’s nothing pure about it. The noble cause is all gone. These guys are entertainers, period, in the money sports. They’re not role models.”

In the end, Lapchick said, disappointment over these scandals will melt into numbness for fans accustomed to seeing corruption at all levels of society.

“I think we are a forgiving people and a sports-loving people,” Lapchick said. “We have the potential to forgive a lot of athletes who do stupid things, or at least the sports they play.”

But, he added, “I don’t think society is going to forgive Michael Vick, unless the charges prove wrong.”

Comments

With my local news clogged with Barry Bonds stories, I was just thinking about this on the way home today.

I suspect you're right that many sports fans simply don't care. Give 'em a seat and a beer and stuff a hot dog in their mouth and they're good to go. Others do care, but watch anyway. Still others can't stomach what sports has become.

I guess this is the metaphor for me. For some people, art is a stickman doodled on a napkin. For others, it's a Picasso. You could say they both are art lovers in their own way, but clearly one is using his brain to deepen his appreciation and the other one is content to not even scratch the surface. There is room for both in the art world, but one of them is a whole lot easier to please and cheaper to drag in to see the art.

Your idea about never underestimating the ignorance of people is spot on and sums up why there is this split about what's good and what's not good. It is the way of the world I suppose.

I believe people subscribe to both camps. People DO love spectacle. And for those who love spectacle beyond all sense, there is the World's Strongest Man competition and similar. No one gives a crap if those men are 'roid heads. Except for the occasional genetic jackpot, most of them almost HAVE to be enhancing their natural abilities with some modern chemistry. And no one cares, really. I've never heard of a doping scandal in the strong man world.

On the other hand, when people believe there is a connection to that idealistic child's world of athleticism, where practice and love of sport get you a spot on the varsity team... they expect a child-like purity. Hence, the Tour de France is plagued by doping scandals, because people desperately want to believe that natural ability, practice, and a can-do attitude are the magic ingredients. This is the case with American baseball, maybe more so than football. The Olympic games. It's hard to tell with college sports, it's started to look like that's where the shake-down is, to separate those who want to be athletes, from those who want to be Winners, if you see the difference.

Actually, the 2007 Tour de France has received the worst advertisement possible from French news organs. It was called names such as Tour de la Honte ("Race of Shame"). Radio hosts commenting it live were openly mocking the inhumans performance of the racers (45 km/h going up a 10% slope, waving the audience and yelling at motorcycles...).

But, what concerns me a lot in today's sports is not that public doesn't care about doping, it's that public unconsciously demands it. Now, people want to see inhuman physical achievements. The improvement in healthcare/quality of life (just food, work conditions,...) and in training techniques in the past 50 years have made records being broken one after the other. But now, we have reached a limit that can only be broken by taking stuffs. Most people don't practice any real regular physical activities, so they have forgotten how hard it is to reach their limits and push them back.
It's absolutely true that sportsmen and women are so afraid of losing their fame, glory, and for some of them fortune (most athletes don't earn much from their sport), that they are ready to inject whatever they can find to stay at the top.

The reporter who wrote this piece is a cynical a**h**e. Professional sports should remain an illustration of what we achieve through training and dedication. But if you look at the sheer facts, he has a point, a concerning one on our nature (maybe I'm the one being cynical here...)

I absolutely love your last paragraph. That's some great writing, girlie. I want to put it on my wall.

Omni said:

There is room for both in the art world, but one of them is a whole lot easier to please and cheaper to drag in to see the art.

I feel this way, too. I mean, I get a kick out of watching America's Next Top Model. Our brains don't need to be on overdrive all the time. What I object to is this mentality of "if people want it, who are you to argue? How dare you think you are better?"

What I see these days is that The Market has become elevated to the status of a false idol. I was watching some cable news network where they were talking about wasting news coverage on Anna Nicole Smith. One Fox News guy was saying something like, "Our audience members want to see that. We're giving people what they want; who are we to judge?"

Maybe that's not a perfect example, but it seems these days that the argument "people want to spend their money on this" trumps all other arguments.

Holly said:

I've never heard of a doping scandal in the strong man world.

There are "natural body building" groups, but they seem to be on the fringe of those kinds of sports.

On the other hand, when people believe there is a connection to that idealistic child's world of athleticism, where practice and love of sport get you a spot on the varsity team......separate those who want to be athletes, from those who want to be Winners, if you see the difference.

I chopped up your comment badly, but along with the idealization of hard work and effort, there's also this obsession with winning, as you point out. It's like these days, failure is not an option. There's no fate worse than second place or something. I'm not expressing myself well right now since I'm worn out from boredom at work, but there seems to be less tolerance these days with not being given an A for effort, not just in school, but almost any other endeavor.

Emmanuel said:

The reporter who wrote this piece is a cynical a**h**e. Professional sports should remain an illustration of what we achieve through training and dedication. But if you look at the sheer facts, he has a point, a concerning one on our nature (maybe I'm the one being cynical here...)

Yup, you are. ;p

I know you're not arguing this, so this is not aimed toward you, but you reminded me of another thing about that article that bugged me. That statement "It's huma nnature, what can we do?" is not a valid argument. There's nothing innate about a preference for the lowest common denominator.

Thanks, Syl.

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)