Society and Sport

As present day sport continues to set the stage for countries seeking national identity and for others to flex their influence upon the world, it is easy to forget that just a century ago many of the sports we take for granted did not yet exist, and those that did would be barely recognizable to modern day sport audiences. Although sport continues to advance and revolutionize itself as a source of entertainment and leisure to an industry rivaling others in size and power, I have remained resilient on the idea that sport is and will always remain a reflection of our ever changing society.

With the evolution of sports within the past few hundred years, both popular culture and politics alike have reflected its perennial reach. Modern culture has witnessed change within social attitudes and standards, and has seen advances in techniques and achievements in records that reflect the commitment of both sportsmen and sportswomen alike.  Furthermore, popular culture has also seen modern fashion reflect sportswear because of our need to emulate professional athletes as our heroes and heroines. As the impact of sport on culture remains high, it similarly has shared an impact on political influence. Athletes have used their fame to run for office and at most times used their fame to boycott or support a cause (e.g. Lance Armstrong’s Cancer Research Foundation or the Lakers Youth Foundation).

As I mentioned earlier, my belief has rested on the fact that the idea of sport has hinged upon the dynamics of our society. However, I must admit, critically evaluating sport within the confines created by government, has given me a taste of a different perspective. Living in a democratic country, we abide by the fundamental beliefs based upon freedom, human dignity, and equality. However, I ask that you not be fooled by the literal meanings these “democratic” terms may entail, but to view our society and the values it rests upon through an unembellished pair of lenses.

All in all, democracy within the United States has been correlated with this idea of being the “land of opportunity”—that the hardest working person almost always gives themselves a chance of success in leading a comfortable life. However, our society fails to preach the ideals it stands for, and instead clouds its fundamental values by promoting world domination and our need for materialistic objects as a means of success. Besides having a hand in almost all foreign affairs, the concerns that should be considered here are the domestic issues regarding our social values, the worth we place behind defining success, and the means to no end it creates. Unlike many other countries, the U.S. values the idea that the more you have the better. It extols the values by placing money with high regard, concluding that it itself is what defines success. It is indeterminately a nation that is immersed in “chasing” the money that it has become a society blinded of the singularity and the intrinsic worth of what life and contentment is supposed to represent.

So, where does sport come into play? Taking a look at the evolution of the Olympic Games and evaluating the changes that have occurred, we should strongly consider it as being an entity that reflects our society. As the Games once promoted amateurism, it now allows for professional athletes from each nation to compete. Similarly, as the world enjoys international competition of a variety of sports across the globe, the Olympic Games still stands as a platform for dominant nations to flex their political authority. Why is it that we are so intent in knowing which nation has led in the overall medal count? Medal counts are clearly a way of asserting the “we’re better than you” attitude, reiterating the enforcement of a nation’s world influence and identity upon others.

THE INFLUENCE OF THE GAMES

Transitioning from the worldwide sporting arena, we should consider the domestic sports viewed on a daily basis as a case for the problems and transparencies faced by sport and society. A problem that I have always had with professional sports was to understand why these athletes receive such disgustingly copious amounts of money throughout a season. Even the president of the United States does not receive close to the amount of a professional athlete’s pay; and he is tasked for making the enormously impacting decisions! Furthermore, the National Hockey League (NHL), the National Basketball Association (NBA), and the National Football League (NFL) continue to stand as multi-billion dollar entertainment conglomerates, strictly making sport into a money-making business. Although I believe the sporting arena serves a purpose of being part of the entertainment industry, the root of the problem seemingly remains to be our unchanging lust for money. In turn, our lust and the value placed on it by sporting industries, is exactly the dilemma which has clouded the true value of sport: to learn the ideas of integrity and ambition, morality, and fair competition.

THE VALUE PLACED ON SPORT

When considering how sport has impacted society and the reflection between which they share, it is plausible that in order to progress toward a more fair and just direction, understanding how to change the values collectively placed by each of them should be examined. I have considered my own interpretation of the direction I believe our democratic society is moving towards; the domination of world power and the imposition of a nation’s identity through the Olympics; and an evaluation of the imbalance of sport created domestically here in the U.S. Finally, I believe if we place a higher regard in the enjoyment and true value sport brings, then can we truly understand and reap the benefits of what it genuinely provides.

The Importance of Understanding Amateurism

As the NCAA basketball season is in full swing, I find myself at odds attempting to wrap my mind around the true underpinnings of intercollegiate sport. Without an understanding for the philosophy of sport, I can find it difficult to fathom the different, yet intricate perspectives this issue presents to the ideal sport enthusiast. Therefore, in order to understand the role that the NCAA plays within the present university system, we must re-evaluate the ideas of fairness and amateurism, and re-conceptualize the true values in which universities claim to stand by.

Fairness has always been coined as “playing by the rules” and “not taking advantage of others”. However, universities continue to disregard student-athletes’ well-beings by taking advantage of their talent and sometimes destroying their “innocent dreams” (Branch). Although I wouldn’t technically label student-athletes as “innocent” dreamers, Branch also makes a careful attempt to not label athletes as slaves. Rather, he refers to the scenario as being a “…whiff of the plantation”, and claims the NCAA and universities are “corporations enriching themselves on the backs of uncompensated young men, whose status as ‘student-athletes’ deprives them of the right to due process guaranteed by the Constitution.”

Although I find Branch’s argument as somewhat arguable, I don’t believe we can say student-athletes are deprived the right to due process. I sense that he is attempting to find a way for student-athletes to be represented as professionals when in reality these athletes are bound by financial aids and scholarships (receiving education for free). Both financial aid and scholarship opportunities awarded to student-athletes are in of itself rewards, voluntarily agreed upon by both parties (the student-athlete and university). Furthermore, Branch alludes to using the term “slaves”, but in fact fails to address the bigger issues: the values placed on higher education and student-athlete prerogatives to be a part of something bigger.

Universities have long stood for deep rooted beliefs by representing themselves as a sanctuary for students to achieve beyond their potential. Despite this, the NCAA continues to generate bad publicity, starkly painting universities as multi-billion dollar monopolies. However, I believe we should not jump to hasty conclusions, but rather, reconsider it by understanding these misconceptions, which are caused by our lack of differentiating between university values and the field of amateurism it is supposed to provide.

IS A HEISMANN TROPHY WINNER PART
OF BEING AN AMATEUR?

As defined within the dictionary, amateurism is labeled as “a person who engages in an activity, especially a sport, as a pastime rather than professionally or for gain”. Universities provide, for the lack of better term, a ‘playground’ for students to compete at an extraordinary level. However, with the amount of revenue poured into sport programs and the stringent rules enforced by the NCAA, all have collectively inflated the idea of novice play into a disproportionate representation of college sports. Furthermore, if universities are supposed to represent collegiate sport as an amateur activity, then why are there multi-million dollar contracts being formed with universities, major television programs, and big name brands like Nike? The answer is quite simple: the idea of amateurism continues to erode because of the collective parsimony of the almighty dollar these universities, television networks, and name brand sponsors receive with every major team.

WHERE IS THE AMATEURISM?

Money and the un-relentless will to win continue to cloud our society and sport arena alike. The talk of paying collegiate athletes and Brand’s suggestion of creating a sport curriculum to me is quite preposterous, because these ideas fail to address the core issues. Additionally, our values have always undertaken a capitalistic mindset, leaving collegiate amateurism and its fundamental ideas of higher learning propagated by universities eroded. However, if we are to keep amateurism alive, both the NCAA and governing academic bodies need to uphold a collective directive of providing an arena which integrates a balance between student academic and amateur sport competition.

Gender Inequalities

As I reflect on gender inequalities deeply rooted in today’s sport settings, I cannot help but reflect on my time here in Japan (I am currently on vacation).  As I have resided here for over 8 years prior to my frequent visits now, I am surprised to see that gender inequality within Japanese culture continues to stand firm. Typically, sports in Japan have been regarded as a masculine ideal. It is so much so that when females participate in sport, they are required to cut their hair much shorter than average females (especially in high school sports and private schools).  Although growing up it was quite strange to me, it somehow brought a sense of acceptance when female athletes were more “tom-boyish” and masculine.  But why is it that females had to almost look, talk, and act like males in order to play sports and to gain acceptance? As Boxill says best, “sport dramatizes the virtues and vices of our society” (397); therefore, I stand firm that sport has been and always will be a reflection of societal and cultural values.

As we progress through the 21^st century, Japanese culture still pervades to believe that men are the breadwinners, while women assume economic roles (secretaries and assistants) and roles of being homemakers. Their perfectionist yet oppressive culture has reaffirmed this polarized ideal that differences in gender roles define both society and sport culture. Although shocking to many, I would like to present a few factual examples in order to better illustrate an understanding. In the Japanese business world, companies are run by “salary men” (as they title many of the working class). As a salary man, there are no set hours and company outings are frequent (at least 3-4 times a week). Alcohol is usually accompanied, leaving most of the men inebriated to the point of public drunkenness (which is not illegal here), causing them to even have sleepovers at their workplaces.

WOMEN AND THEIR OWN TRAIN CART

So, where do females come in? In the business world there is an unwritten rule for companies when they hire support staff (secretaries, assistants, etc.). Much of the criteria require these positions to be filled primarily by females aged 23-26. Furthermore they prefer single women who are not married and do not have children. Why? It’s because when women are single and do not have children, women can devote their time to their job (remember: there are no set hours for work because everyone is expected to work hard). Furthermore, as salary men go on their company outings, female workers must almost always accompany them. To clearly illustrate this, think of females in the work force as full-time secretaries and part-time escorts (seen in much bigger cities like Tokyo). Finally, please understand that I am not here to bash Japanese culture. However, my purpose is to paint an unseen picture of a polarized gender difference in Japanese culture and its effects on their sport culture.

Since I have painted a rather oppressive society and sense that women will always remain inferior to their male counterparts, I however believe sport is a common ground where both females and males are treated equally.  Most schools in Japan promote education and some sort of socialization through sports. And just as Kidd mentioned, socialization and education through it is understood to be as masculine (p. 406).  Furthermore, I think the biggest difference that I see between Japanese and U.S. sporting culture is that there really isn’t any femininity in sport participation in Japan. As I mentioned earlier, females are almost always required to cut their hair shorter than non-participating females. I speculate this because just like their society’s culture, sport is another attempt of men dominating everything. Therefore, if women want to be accepted into male dominated sports, they are comparatively needed to become masculine as their male counterparts.

After experiencing both American and Japanese societal and sport culture, a fairly different trend regarding women is seen in the U.S. As I mentioned earlier, Japan strips the femininity in sport, further suppressing female self-expression (surprisingly females are accepting of it). While the U.S. stands impervious on women rights and gender equality in society, the laws that allow women to vote or to partake in equal employment opportunities are examples of a smoke screen created to mask the true gender discrimination that pervades in American society.

As the National Football League (NFL), National Basketball Association (NBA), and the National Hockey League (NHL) represent expressions of masculinity, American sporting culture portrays a much different picture when regarding women and sports. By being a nation based on equal opportunities, the U.S. is truly a culprit in gender discrimination, creating inferiority by sexualizing female sports. For example, if we take a look at the Lingerie Football League, why was it created? How is it that male football players get to wear masculine uniforms that accentuate their musculature bodies, while women partake in the same sport but in underwear and a bra? Is it because “lingerie” football won’t be as exciting to watch anymore if they conformed to male uniforms?

WHAT CONSTITUTES GENDER DISCRIMINATION?

What about college intramural basketball?  As someone who has personally worked within an intramural environment for the past 4-5 years, co-ed basketball by far is the most discriminatory toward female participants. For example, a back court count for standard play of basketball is 10 seconds, while co-ed enforces a 12 second back court limit; a female cannot be guarded by a male at any time and cannot be blocked by males as they (females) attempt to score a basket. Similarly, point scoring for females is also a handicap during co-ed basketball. Baskets that are scored below the 3-point line are traditionally scored as two pointers; however, as females score, their baskets are scored as 3 points. Similarly, if they are fouled in any shape or form (by either male or female), they are awarded 3 free throws instead of the traditional 2 pointers.

Although not noticeable on the surface when females and males compete, the bending of the rules benefiting female participants is another way of males flexing their dominance in sport. It is another way of suppressing women into believing they can never compete at a male level, that females need more time in the backcourt, or need more attempts at the free throw line in order to call it fair.

Finally, as Boxill believes we should rethink the “value” of sports and that in doing so goes beyond the eradication of hidden biases in how people think, I believe it truly isn’t where we should focus our attention (396). As I mentioned earlier, I am adamant that sport reflects societal views. In doing so, we should rethink our “values” of society and really see that as a human race, we have not really evolved in eradicating gender inequality in society.

Sport and Art: The Way We View Them

Transitioning from two weeks of analysis surrounding sport and doping, I find myself at odds in tackling the issues regarding sport and aesthetics. I find it difficult to appreciate today’s sport aesthetics due to the corruption caused by the use of illegal performance-enhancing drugs. However, In pursuit of gaining invaluable knowledge, and seeking possible answers regarding the true artistic nature of sport, I believe that it is exactly this reason which gives me a glimmer of hope in seeing the true innocence of sport.

Art is defined as “an expression according to aesthetic principles” (Dictionary). It has been a part of human existence for many centuries, and while it has been expressed in many different forms, (i.e. cave paintings, stone sculptures) the underlying criteria still remains based on aestheticism. However, the idea of sport, though it has not outdated the existence of art, has existed for a few thousand years (think of the beginning of the Greek Olympics). Despite what many continue to discern sport to be as, the battle between whether or not there exists a distinction between art and sport is a battle that will continue to rage for centuries to come.

Although artistic implications take on aesthetic foundations, the term aesthetic, according to David Best, encompasses an evaluative and conceptual framework (p.110). As simple as one may think of the term aesthetic, the idea of it is fairly mystifying in regards to sport. We really can’t quite say whether something is aesthetic is necessarily artistic. And in sport, aesthetics refers more so to the “efficient and economical movement or action”, and possesses a purpose that cannot specifically be detached in the manner of achieving a goal (Best, p. 114). Although literature claims there are attachments of skill, efficiency, self-expression, achievement, beauty, and context within the ideas of sport aestheticism, I believe the convoluted characteristics that surround it are not that quite different from art.

As I progress towards the invaluable knowledge that philosophy continues to present, I find that in order to alleviate the confusion between tangible similarities of art and aesthetic sport, it is necessary for me to attempt to view art as we do sport. As I was watching the Los Angeles Lakers compete last night against their hometown rival the Clippers, I pondered at the idea of how we view art. Today, when I think of art, I envision paintings that hang on the walls of the Louvre Museum in Paris, France. Additionally, if there were small captions underneath, I recall that I would have probably read the history of that specific piece, and maybe reflect on the realistic beauties it presented. But you see, I feel that we are disadvantaged when we view art, because although we get to appreciate the final product, we rarely get a glimpse of how it was completed; the process of the artist’s skill at work—the aesthetics behind a masterpiece.

However in the game of basketball, we have the luxury of witnessing the aesthetics that have created and defined the game as it is today. But what is it that has helped me identify these specific traits? Reflecting back on the Lakers vs. Clippers game, I think about what I was listening to. As I was watching the game, I listened to what the NBA commentators had to say about certain players. Hearing them speak about players’ making bad passes, ‘ugly’ and ‘pretty’ shots, and ‘awkward’ movements (characteristics not necessarily confined to the rules of the game), I began to wonder how it would be like to view an artist’s work in a similar way. Hypothetically speaking, what if there were commentators and audiences that witnessed Leonardo Da Vinci paint the Mona Lisa? I imagine Da Vinci sitting on a stool with a blank canvas resting on an easal. Not far back, I can imagine two to three commentators describing his aesthetics: the stroke in his movement, or maybe even the way Da Vinci gathers paint onto his brush. Finally, behind the commentators, I imagine an audience attempting to grab a glimpse of Da Vinci’s progress, but also tuning in to what the commentators have to say.

WHAT IF WE COULD WATCH?

So in the end, what is the point of viewing art the way we view sport? It is because there is something we see in sport which we cannot see in art. As we all know, Michael Jordan is the blueprint to the iconic and signature moves we see in modern day basketball. But how is it that we know his moves represent great aestheticism? Was it really because his reverse lay-up looked like the most efficient and economical way of scoring? No, absolutely not. His reverse lay-ups almost always had a double pump of the body, requiring it to expend higher amounts of energy. However, it is more plausible that it was a form of self-expression of his emotional attachment to the game. Jordan was an artist of revolutionary basketball moves that forever changed the game. Similarly, commentators, audiences, and basketball players alike witnessed Jordan’s beautiful qualities as he advanced toward the end product.

ECONOMICAL AND EFFICIENT?

As mentioned earlier, art is defined as an expression with aesthetic principles. But the question still remains, is sport a form of art? It is acknowledged that art and sport both possess aesthetic qualities; however, many still argue that there is a strong separation between the two.  Despite this current distinction, I believe it is unfair to conclude that sport is not a form of art. Artistic creations from past centuries continue to intrigue us because of what we don’t know about them. The modern world is only familiar with the end products of each past artistic work, never knowing what it was really like to witness revolutionary changes that occurred during the time. Artist emotion, self-expression, and process in achieving an outcome, I believe, are similar to that of aesthetic sport. Similarly, the unknown of art is what creates the gap that prohibits the idea of sport being a form of art. However, my attempt to view art in context to the way we view sport is something that should be evaluated in order to avoid hasty conclusions.

Performance Enhancing Drugs: The Fine Line

SPORT ADS IN THE NEXT CENTURY?

After immersing myself in another week of deep exploration into the history and issues surrounding drug and sport, I am beginning to wonder why modern sport continues to be apprehensive about the idea of legalizing performance enhancing drugs (PEDs). Particularly in the 21st century, why is it that we continue to have stringent policies banning the usage of these drugs?

Equipped with Dimeo’s work on drugs and sport history and Brown’s views regarding the implications of paternalism, I have come to a realization to what may become of sport. Dimeo said, in regards to drug use and experimentation in sport, a “golden age” of pure sport never existed (p.11). I believe this was true in the 20th century, and will continue to be true in centuries to come. When I think of the “golden age” and pure sport, I think of Simon’s mutual quest for excellence. However, modern sport has been, and will continue to be clouded by our quest for achievements, that ultimately defines a “be all, or nothing at all” mentality.

So why is it that athletes (not all) are so fascinated with PEDs? At the same time, why is it that these specific means to performance-enhancement are frowned upon by the public and sport institutions? I think that the problem lies within the contradictory desires between the three. In a perfect sporting world, athletes would compete fairly, meanwhile, quest for excellence towards the betterment of the sport and competition. Spectators would enjoy the aesthetics and satisfaction the sport itself provides, while the governing institution of sport would maintain fairness by implementation of regulative and constitutive rules of the game. However, it is not what we see today. Modern sport spectators have placed a high premium on victory, bestowing upon athletes an intense human drive to achieve above and beyond. Furthermore, sporting institutions and other governing bodies are lackadaisical in their attempts to control and implement the necessary rules prohibiting the use of illegal PEDs.

Modern sport evolves around achievements. Without it, you’re nothing. PEDs entice us (athletes, spectators, and sport institution alike) to discover what goes beyond “natural” talent. We want to see athletes compete beyond what they are naturally endowed to do. But if this is so, why do we ban the uses of these drugs? Speaking strictly on a hard paternalistic view, Brown says that by restricting athletes the choice for drug use, we “deny certain key values adjoined to sport: achievement, self-reliance, and autonomy” (p. 284). So why not just legalize them? Similar to the idea of pro-abortion or anti-abortion, why not set the argument for performance-enhancing drugs within a parallel context?  Although I agree in some aspects, I am inclined to take this with a grain of salt. However, I believe the pivotal distinction to why we continue to ban PEDs is based upon how we contextualize achievement.

Regardless of what one says, sport will always be based on achievements. Nonetheless, the reason why we continue to ban the use of PEDs is because we still want to see AUTHENTIC achievements. When I think about what an authentic achievement means, I think about the honest and genuine foundation one proceeds to attain them. Being authentic in the way one achieves a sport goal demonstrates unquestionable passion and commitment to the sport itself.

So in the end, why have we not seen a complete legalization of PEDs? If the uses have dated back from within the past century, why does it seemingly look as if we have not progressed into a revolutionized and regulative drug enhanced sport? As mentioned earlier, a fine line has been drawn by the way we contextualize our obsession for achievement. It remains dominantly within the course of its authenticity, and is the reason why society and sport alike have not taken the plunge into the idea of sport transformation. I have also suggested that authenticity involves the honest passion for the sport itself. And as much as modern sport obsesses with the idea of achievements; effort, hard work, and natural endowment are all characteristics that are still appreciated in sport. Ultimately, we need to strive to keep sport as it is. In doing so, a stronger urgency towards a complete prohibition of drugs is a step that still needs to be taken in order to both prevent a troublesome future and to preserve the authenticity of sport.

References:

W.M. Brown, “Paternalism, Drugs, and the Nature of Sports,” Journal of the Philosophy of Sport (1984): 14-22.

Dimeo, “Sport, Drugs, and Society.”

Lance, Who Are We to Blame?

AN ATHLETE AND A HUMAN

In light of the most recent events involving USADA’s doping allegations against Lance Armstrong, his endorsement drop by Nike, and his willful abdication as Livestrong’s chairman, the context of this week’s readings firmly correlate to the issues of performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) and competition. Although the foreseeable stripping of Armstrong’s titles and his lifetime banishment from professional cycling has been almost, if not already established, understanding the works created by Simon and Hoberman may shed light on the deeper constructs of drug influence on sport performance. Additionally, I believe the foundation of their arguments raise interesting questions about who we should ultimately blame for athletes using PEDs. Should it be the institutions that govern sport? Or the un-relentless pressures of societal views? What about the doctors who have the ability to prescribe steroids and other forms of PEDs?

Simon draws a fair distinction between genetic enhancements and performance enhancing drugs. Although he believes that there is more wiggle room for genetic enhancement to be explored, he draws an interesting point regarding PEDs; in particular the idea of paternalism, coercion, and the feasible comparisons to the ideas of what constitutes unfair performance advantages (e.g. dieting and equipment). Simon’s ultimate view on PEDs and the quest for excellence is that they should be continued to be banned based on the fact that the uses “are ways of avoiding the challenges presented by sport rather than overcoming them” (p. 89). Moreover, he believes that PEDs “cheapen the achievements” of sport, making it difficult to make fair comparisons of athletes. PEDs take away the “elitism” of the “professional” aspect of sports, because hey, if Barry Bonds is breaking records, I bet I could do it too. In regards to the latter, I am merely trying to make a point that in regards to Simon, if the very idea of professional sports can be compromised with PEDs, then it opens the door to younger generations of aspiring athletes to resort to immoral and unjustified means of achieving a quest for excellence.

On the other hand, Hoberman takes a somewhat different approach to the convoluted issues regarding steroids in sport. As Hoberman discussed much of the early existence and evolution of drugs, he ultimately believed that as technology labels steroids as a means of therapy, the drug will become more difficult to ban, let alone enforce within sports. Despite the fact that PEDs should be banned, Hoberman creates an image in my mind that if they were to fail to withhold the distinction between enhancement and therapy, world records would sky rocket and a whole new way of viewing sports would be created—like Hoberman said, “one can see the athletes now, lined up at the start of an Olympic final early in the next century, their drug-company logos gleaming in the sun” (p.243).

So, the question still remains: why did Lance Armstrong do it? I think there are various personal reasons to why he did, but the true underpinnings involving society’s values, their view on sport, and the institutions that govern and enforce the rules against the use of PEDs are worthy to be explored. Cycling is a sport, just like baseball, hockey, football, tennis, and badminton. Maybe if we didn’t elevate athletes to Greek Gods then it wouldn’t be so devastating if/when they falter. Society and fans alike view athletes and sports in one microscopic lens. We fail to understand that athletes are humans too, and that when they are elevated to be viewed as Gods, the pressures and standards they must adhere to seem insurmountable. Similarly, we see the successes of Tiger Woods and Michal Vick as athletes, but how many women has Tiger cheated on with? Or what about the amount of dogs Michael has killed? Both of those scandals were in the news for a few months, but for some reason society didn’t see that as being something worthy of stripping Tiger’s green jackets for, or banishing Michael from playing football. I am merely attempting to flip society’s ideals on how we view athletes, because many of us have forgotten the impact Armstrong has had on the betterment of cancer research and care.

Although I have never condoned the actions of an athlete who resorts to cheating, I however, cannot help but question the officials that oversee and regulate the screening policies for sporting events. Perhaps the USADA is trying to destroy the image of cycling in America (far-fetched, but not impossible), and yes, I am disappointed in the actions Armstrong took, but at the same time, we can’t be naive. Look back at other sports that lack the extensive and random drug testing that exists in the cycling world. We have running backs in the NFL that look like body builders. Sammy Sosa at the age of 27 goes from 180 pounds to 220 pounds. Look at some of the Olympians: Chinese female swimmers who looked like men and the admissions of the then East Germans.  My point is that in the modern sporting world, the pressure to succeed and excel in sport is too great not to cheat. However, this can be counterbalanced with committees that are willing to revamp stringent policies in creating more efficient testing and oversight, not just with athletes but also with caretakers of those who compete. Just this week, a news story broke out about an ex-Steelers team doctor who prescribed steroids. Although the investigation is ongoing, you can only suspect who he was prescribing those steroids to.

So, who is to blame for the rampant use of performance enhancing drugs? Is it solely on the athlete? Or the committees that are supposed to oversee these acts of cheating? What about societal views and the pressures we create upon them? Lance Armstrong admittedly has done wrong in resorting to doping. He is most likely going to have all of his titles stripped, and he already has been banished from the sport of cycling along with being stripped of his endorsements from some major companies. Furthermore, his abdication of his position at Livestrong seemingly looks to me like he has been bereaved of all dignities. I don’t think Armstrong is completely to blame for the use of PEDs, however, it is worthy for us to examine ourselves and those who govern the sporting world to consider changes.

Discovering the True Implications of Winning

After immersing myself in this week’s readings regarding different philosophical perspectives on the idea of winning, I could not help but reflect back on some of the previous posts that I created. I was attractively drawn to one in particular where I concluded that our need for victory was an un-relentless quest. In addition, this week’s readings have allowed me to expand on this particular idea that winning, or our quest for victory for that matter, is defined by our overemphasis on winning and the affixed achievements that come with it.

Why is it that we have this insatiable hunger for victory? Why is winning emphasized so much in today’s sport culture? Unfortunately you see it in professional sports and even youth sports. For example, last month a father (Robert Sanfilippo) of a 9-year old baseball player was arrested for stalking a rival head coach and his son due to his own son’s poor performance. Along with sending threatening text messages to the rival coach, he aggressively recruited players and even went out of the way to pay for all of their sport fees in attempt to seek vengeance. He even named his team the Long Island Vengeance. 

An overemphasis on winning?

Some would call this man insane, but I think it was a father who absentmindedly amplified what it means to win, ultimately forgetting what the pleasures of sport brings. Moreover, I think this example quite arguably affirms the deep-rooted issues proposed by Joan Hundley. She claims that the modern sporting world overemphasizes winning and that competitors should hold traditional sporting attitudes by striving for a balanced level of excellence. Moreover, the example of the father and son attests to Hundley’s assertion of the idea of Neo-Marxism. Neo-Marxists believe that modern sport mirrors today’s capitalistic society and claim that the idea of winning has essentially become a “commodity”. Furthermore, they define athletic success as a sole production of victories, and that our capitalistic society “transforms sport into a dehumanizing activity in which participants will do just about anything to themselves and/or their opponents to win” (Hundley, 210).

If it is true that our sporting environment is dependent and a reflection of our capitalistic society, then what can we do to change our ways of thinking? Play theorists suggest a worthy idea that focuses on the spirit of play. They believe that “play” is the reason for human existence and increases the enjoyment of sport. Furthermore, they claim that the overemphasis of sport is due to society’s work ethic and that we “work to fulfill needs”. Therefore, in order to see an eradication of violent and inhumane nature of society, sport needs to take on a play spirit (Hundely, 214).

As much as I would like to believe in the play spirit, I just don’t think it’s realistic. Unfortunately, modern day sport isn’t played for the sake of play. Remember, it’s all about achievements. It’s all about what I can do better than you. And in order for me to do so, I have to work harder than you.

Although play theorists convincingly provide an interesting but weak argument, I believe something along the lines of Carr’s moral dimension may more appropriately accommodate the issues surrounding our overemphasis on winning. As mentioned earlier, winning is determined by our achievements and ultimately defines us. First, I do want to make it clear that Carr would slightly disagree with me. He believes that “we need to promote attitudes of proper disinterested detachment from personal achievements” (Carr, 204). He also concludes that the focus of sports should take the role of moral development and that athletes should only take responsibility for their own moral actions. Although I believe Carr does not completely disdain from the idea of appreciating achievement, I think there ultimately is an alleviation and balance that is created when an attachment of moral virtues is to one’s achievements. Furthermore, this alleviation may provide a better insight in how we may allay the issues surrounding our overemphasis on winning.

Are there moral implications?

A common theme in today’s modern sporting arena is this idea of winning is everything. This idea is something that is so deeply embedded within our modern sport and society that I highly doubt it will ever be swayed. But if this is truly the case, then what active changes can we make in order to provide a sense of balance? I suggest that we understand that the practice of sport and the idea of winning is a balance between upholding moral underpinnings with the achievements we acquire. Within context, the example used earlier regarding the coach is essentially a clear example of a someone who was so rooted in winning that he ignored his moral compass. And although I believe we have this un-relentless desire for victory, it is important to understand that  it is something that can be achieved within an ethical context.

The Ethical Transition

At times, I find the transition from philosophical readings to the applied real-world rather convoluted. However, as a sport coach and a believer in the overall advancement of sport, conceptualizing the unique ideas of ethical sportsmanship and fair play as an educational tool holds great value. My responsibility as a coach does not only encompass proficiency as a leader and motivator, but also an educator. I strive to provide an environment for young athletes to establish moral responsibility and respect toward the devices that govern their actions, both within the sporting and real-world environment. After immersing myself with each of the authors’ works, I have asked myself: What is my moral obligation as a coach? How can I instill ethical guidelines among my players?

I believe the answers lie within the work of Fraleigh, Pearson, and Loland. Fraleigh gives great insight into the importance of prescribed and proscribed rules that allow participants to pursue the “pre-lusory goals of the game” (p. 187). Furthermore, he also demonstrates why the “good foul” violates the agreement of a sports contest. As Fraleigh set the foundational course of rules, Pearson defined the purpose of athletics and conjoined two forms of deception (strategic and definitional), determining whether or not they were deemed unethical.

Although I find Fraleigh and Pearson vital to understanding the basic outline of what ethics constitute, I find myself especially captivated by the profound ideas Loland conveyed within his work. His ideas of discourse ethics, combined with the values of ethos, practice, and fairness is paramount in justifying the importance of educating future generations of sport competitors. Within his work, he created “norms” that ultimately created a moral code of conduct: a norm of fairness and play. His fairness norm stipulated that when participants voluntarily engage in competition, the participants should take honor in the shared ethos of the practice so long as the ethos does not interfere with the basic, ethical principles (p.191). Additionally, his play norm stated that “when voluntarily engaged in sport competitions, play to win!” (p. 191). Furthermore, Loland concluded that in order for participants to realize the moral intuitions that discourse ethics provides, they should engross themselves within the practices of discourse and “cultivate their sense of fair play from within” (p.193). Although Loland asserted the ideas of a fairness and play norm as a moral guideline, the applied component of his philosophical work proves to be a challenge (this is the part I am most interested in).

As I mentioned earlier, I find philosophical work, at times, difficult to simplify into the applied world, but with the ensemble of invaluable information on the issue of ethics, what does it really boil down to? Is it necessary to exhibit a moral obligation in regards to ethics and competition? After much thought, I believe that all sport participants should realize the presence of moral obligation by understanding the ethical guidelines of fair play. That in order to do so, an athlete must look deep down and ask themselves, why do I play the sport? Is it for the money and/or the fame? Or is it because I love and respect the game? If it is for the love of the game, then one assumes that working toward the internal goods of the game is most appropriate.

THE DOORWAY TO REALIZATION

Collectively, Loland, Pearson, and Fraleigh proposed ideas that made me sit back and think about why I coach; more specifically in regards to my moral obligation and my attempts to instill ethical guidelines. Achieving victory is an elating event, however, the road to victory and ‘how’ it is achieved is of great significance. In doing so, it is important that I am there to help my players realize that victory and good sportsmanship should be achieved while ‘realizing’ the experiential value within the game (i.e. hard work, or running successful plays).  But as parents and professors reiterate the phrase “we can only show you to the door, you have to step through it yourself”, it is a constant reminder to myself that although I may know how to demonstrate good sportsmanship, or set guidelines of how my team should ethically act, it is ultimately their choice to “step through that door” and realize “the moral obligations” through practice.

Sportsmanship and The Coaching Philosophy

When I come to think about good sportsmanship, I think of simple examples, such as athletes and coaches amicably shaking hands after matches, or opposing players assisting each other when injured. On the other hand, when I consider what bad sportsmanship entails, I think of athletes committing “cheap shots” against their opponents, or coaches heckling at officials. While these acts of sportsmanship share similarities in physically representing different modes of conduct, my interests lie within the internal mechanisms as to why we commit these certain acts. Reoccurring themes from the works of Simon, Dixon, Feezell, and Arnold have interpreted sportsmanship in terms of deep-seated constructs. The focus of their works was not necessarily aimed at the physical interpretations that one makes on the field, but rather, the understanding of the internal contraptions that drive the ‘how’ and the ‘why’ one performs an act of sportsmanship.

After the course of my attempts to understand sportsmanship, I began to ponder about certain issues as a sport coach, and whether or not I have demonstrated good sportsmanship towards game officials and players. More importantly, I have asked myself whether or not I have represented the practice of good sportsmanship for my players. I believe that sportsmanship is a debatable, yet convoluted subject that is based on ideals. It has no specific boundary as to where it really begins or as to where it ends, but we know it is there, and open to one’s individual interpretation. However, a viable fact is that sportsmanship does set a precedent of how individuals within the sporting environment should conduct themselves, as it ultimately contributes to the value of sport.

Collectively, Simon, Dixon, Feezell, and Arnold captured many different and important constructs that define sportsmanship. The ideas that were most interesting were that of Dixon’s rejection to the AB Thesis and his idea on intention behind actions, and how it defines sportsmanship; Feezell’s virtue approach towards understanding ethics and how sportsmanship balances between play and seriousness; Simon’s view on competition’s mutual quest for excellence and contexts of sport; and Arnold’s three approaches to sportsmanship (altruism being the most interesting).

Arnold’s approach to sportsmanship as a form of altruism essentially captures the intrinsic aspect (moral) of games. Arnold claims that altruism, in the forms of action and conduct, believes those who hold true to altruistic values go beyond playing fairly by showing “genuine concern for one’s fellow competitors, whether on the same side or in opposition” (p. 161). As a sport coach, I have witnessed the insensitive actions many athletes partake in during competition. However, I do believe that if altruistic values can be taught by parents and coaches alike, and that they are demonstrated by athletes; I truly believe sports would have a better balance between competitive aggression and warring connotations.

SHOWING GENUINE CONCERN

Similarly, another aspect that I have used in trying to understand my coaching philosophy in regards to sportsmanship is Dixon’s rejection to the AB Thesis. The AB Thesis basically states that it is unsportsmanlike for teams to maximize the margin of victory after securing a large enough lead. On the surface, it seems like it would hold water, however, Dixon’s main argument suffices the idea that intentions play a large role in determining what is considered unsportsmanlike. Dixon clearly states that he despises teams that “mock, taunt, and gloat at outmatched opponents” (p. 175). Nevertheless, he believes that teams should show mutual respect, and that if the intentions are not to maliciously humiliate opponents, we should view competitive sport for its primary purpose: the determination of relative athletic ability (p. 172).

As intentions and altruistic values serve as a partial understanding to sportsmanship, the idea of Feezell’s individual virtues of sportsmanship has also assisted in the discernment of my coaching philosophy. Feezell best portrays sportsmanship as a balance between the serious and non-serious aspects of competition, and supposes that “being a good sport is simply an extension of being a good person” (p. 153). Believably, sport should possess a balance between non-serious and seriousness, ultimately creating an environment where coordination and amicability between coaches and players may prevail. However, being a good sport does not necessarily mean you are a good person. Plenty of times have I seen dramatic changes of attitude and demeanor differ between on the court and off the court. Consequently, I find it difficult to link a good sport to being a good person.

GOOD SPORT VS. GOOD PERSON

As a sport coach, I find myself caught in between the crossfire of competition and sportsmanship. But through careful examination of each of these authors’ work, I have been able to build upon my philosophical foundation and direction as a coach. Furthermore, incorporating altruistic values, intentions, and individual virtues have allowed me to better understand myself as a leader. As mentioned earlier, good sportsmanship sets precedence and contributes to the value of sport. Therefore, it is my ultimate responsibility as a practitioner of sport to instill the moral ideologies of sportsmanship.

Our Quest For Victory

As I read this week’s readings about D’Agostino and Morgan’s analyses of games and rules, and their implementation of their ideas of how formalism and ethos should operate (e.g. Morgan’s social context perspective and D’Agostino’s permissible, impermissible, and unacceptable behavior), I was attractively drawn to Brown’s ideas regarding the prudential life and the distinction between external and internal goods on sport and practice. Through the collective work of the authors, I find myself continually trying to understand the practice of sport and what it ultimately entails for participants. Thus, I have arrived at the conclusion that the idealism for the practices of sport, regardless of one’s internal and external pursuits, possesses one thing in common: the un-relentless quest for victory.

As a high school basketball coach, I ask myself and my players, why do we play the game of basketball? Why do we practice the game? Most times I can say that the majority of them would say to “win”, or to “beat the other team”, or to “be champions”.  It is unfortunate to see that our culture focuses on the idea that “winning” is everything.  It is witnessed within sports, movies, social media, and even within the pursuit of the American dream. Success to us means winning, and we are willing to do anything to achieve it.

WHY CAN WE NOT ACCEPT LOSING?

Brown claims that practice is characterized as “complex social activities” and that practice essentially determines the goods (internal and external) to be achieved (p. 65).  Internal goods are characterized by things that are achieved by the practice itself, or rewards within the sport. Furthermore, Brown characterizes external goods as “those contingent to a practice, and have nothing to do with the practice itself” (p.66).  He labels money, fame, and entertainment as sources for external goods. However, the issue at hand is how and why the attitude of winning devalues the distinction between the two.

To demonstrate Brown’s assertion, I intend to use an example of what I have recently experienced. As my high school basketball season nears, I have asked my team to take pride in one thing: pride in our defense, because defense WINS games. Reflecting upon this particular statement I made, Brown’s claim that “winning blurs the distinction between internal and external goods” (p.64) flashed across my mind. Truly my intention was for my team to understand that defense is a necessary component to master within the sport, and that from my own personal experience, when one understands the constructs of defense, one understands the game. However, the implied context translated into just DEFENSE WINS GAMES. Knowing my team, I recognize they will not want to play defense because it is good for their overall basketball intellect, but rather, will play defense for the external rewards of success. So as a sport practitioner, and a believer that the practice of the game should be practiced in and for itself, how does one instruct my players in doing just that? Through my previous experience as a high school basketball player, I do admit that defense wins games. Social media such as NBA TV and ESPN would agree as well.  However, the art of defense in basketball is a philosophical construct (internal good) that has been perplexed by external means. Has society and I alike, been brainwashed to the point where we have lost the “love of the game” and instead fallen in love for what extraneous elation victory brings (gold medals, championships, winning records)?

Society, social media, and professional sports, I believe, will perennially promote the idea of winning, strongly masking the pursuit of internal and external goods. Although I believe the human nature of participants of sport possess an un-relentless quest for victory, I however, on the same token, do not believe we should relinquish the distinction between the pursuits of internal and external goods. Brown’s work has served as an eye opening affirmation of how sport practitioners should educate future participants. Ultimately, future practitioners should preserve the ideas of internal and external goods of why we practice sport, but at the same time, acknowledge that victory is also part of the game.