Cheating in Sport . . .

- it's seems to be everywhere, and the newspapers are full of it - in every sense!!

Mark Vincent takes a sideways look at the subject, through a very broad arch . . .

The topic covers acres (or should that be hectares) of newsprint, and fills hours of glorious pub-talk.

The fact that cheating happens at all, is just a reflection of one sad dimension of basic human nature; but repeated, diverse and ever-more inventive occurrences of cheating cause this particular correspondent to ask some fundamental questions about the direction of sport, both professional and amateur.

If only the participants of every sport had the same attitude as professional snooker players, who have a deeply inculcated culture for calling their own fouls.

One must at least be thankful that individuals and teams are being detected in their misdemeanours, even though we will never be sure of how large a proportion of this particular iceberg will forever remain invisible; but, once detected - how effective (or ineffective) are sports governing bodies at coping with these issues?

I fear that the lessons learned, by our young sports players, from recent examples, will be as follows--

Lesson 1 - - [very basic] If you are going to cheat, try to make sure that you don't get detected doing it . . .

- This includes being aware of any cameras watching you, and training yourself to resist the temptation to wink at your coach after completing your ignominious deed. (Tom Williams – Harlequins Bloodgate [see clip]: Kyle Lafferty - Charlie Mulgrew’s sending-off [see clip below] ).
 

Lesson 2) Remember that sports governing bodies do not enjoy handling cases of cheating . .

. . if any particular instance of cheating can be swept under the carpet, more often than not, it's fine by them - - they only feel compelled to act once the out-side-world knows that they know. Examples of this are all too numerous.

For decades, athletics turned a blind-eye to the widespread use of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs. Their detection procedures contained more loop-holes than a Cyril Lord carpet; they only implemented more effective measures of detection after the sport's reputation had reached rock-bottom, and, possibly more motivating, sponsorship funding had dropped to crisis levels.

Lesson 3) Remember - - sports governing bodies are likely to judge an occurrence of cheating, with more of a focus on the financial consequences for them, rather than on "natural justice".

The reason why Harlequins RUFC cheated in their Heineken Cup semi final with Leinster, was because they wanted to win the Heineken Cup, and were prepared to employ deception in order to do so ; therefore, the ONLY logical punishment, was for the European Rugby Cup (ERC) to bar the club from the Heineken Cup for a number of seasons (say, 2 or 3).     For the Quins to still be included in the 2009-10 competition is a scandal which brings the sport, the tournament and the sponsors into disrepute : I will certainly feel uncomfortable in watching any of the tournament this season.

The problem is, that the ERC were effectively boxed-in by having pre-sold the TV rights for this season's Heineken Cup matches; with Quins fixtures at a premium, and with sponsor & marketing events in late-stage development - - in effect, the tournament had already 'gone to print' with the money banked and allocated.    The extended logic of this approach, is similar to a government not calling a general election, with the only reason being that there are three months of current parliamentary debates still scheduled to be shown on the BBC Parliament channel !!

The fact that so many people within the sport of Rugby are pleading, "please stop mentioning 'bloodgate' ; let's move on" - makes me believe that, in many respects, the sport is still in denial about its failings; and wish these failings to be treated in the same way that Charlotte Brontë's Mr Rochester treated his first wife.

In 2006, after the infamous match-fixing conspiracies involving Juventus, Milan, Fiorentina, Lazio and Reggina, - the Italian Football Federation initially imposed heavy point deductions on all the clubs, and the relegation of Fiorentina, Lazio and Juventus, (with a two division drop for Juve'). Given the seriousness of the scandal, most commentators considered these measures to be justified; however, after the IFF's money-men had convinced the top officers of the consequent reduction in the revenue which would be generated by the League, the punishments were soon effectively emasculated, with only Juve' being relegated (and only down to Serie B).

Lesson 4) If you cheat, and everyone finds out, it helps if you or your team are very influential and/or have access to plenty of money.

I am sure that I do not really need to develop this point too much, but, simply ask yourself if the penalty imposed by the World Motor Sport Council upon the Renault F1 team (for Nelson Piquet Jr's "planned" crash during the 2008 Singapore GP) would have been quite so lenient if the team involved had been Force India? [see clip below]

Let’s just think this particular case through - - - The WMSC were ruling on this admitted act of cheating, just a couple of months after Henry Surtees had been killed by a detached road-wheel from an otherwise innocuous crash, and just weeks after Felipe Massa was put in to a coma (just half an inch from death) by a lump of metal which had detached from a preceding car.
If someone had been killed by the debris from Piquet’s “planned” crash, the Singapore law authorities would have been justified in considering charges of manslaughter for all those conspirators involved ; but the best that the WMSC could come up with is:- Alonso’s contrived race-win stands, immunity for the driver (Piquet Jr), a suspended ban for the team – (which, in effect is no ban at all), and the booting-out of two 'millionaire' scapegoats from the team.
From WMSC’s & FIA’s point of view, the pill was sweetened by receipt of a healthy amount of cash from Renault, which is, effectively, being paid by French taxpayers – whose government is currently bank-rolling the team’s parent company.

I have heard the argument that Renault’s association with this cheating incident will have cost them tens of millions in bad publicity, and that this is punishment enough - - but frankly, this is incidental to the sport itself. The plain fact is that people within motor sport – the other teams, the fans, the sponsors and the viewers – have all been mislead and conned by this incident. The WMSC’s job is to safeguard the sport and those involved in it – not to get involved in corporate, industrial and global politics.

Lesson 5) Many sports governing bodies are reluctant to make significant judgements, which might impact crucialy on sporting outcomes (championship, relegation/promotion etc.)

. . this is understandable, but can bring about worrying inconsistencies of decisions. This is exemplified by several Formula 1 stewards' rulings, where apparently identical driving infringements result in different outcomes, depending upon the standings at the time.

Another example . . . The West Ham United's, Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano transfer irregularities of 2006-7, should have resulted in a deduction of league points (according to FIFI and EFA rules), and certainly would have done IF The Hammers had been mid-table in the Premiership ; but as a deduction of points would have relegated West Ham (and handed safety to Sheffield United) the FA were reluctant to do so, and were more than happy to increase The Hammer's fine to a tasty £5.5M. . . . Sheffield United's lawyers have been busy contesting this ever since: the last I heard, they were seeking £30M from W.H.U. and the FA in settlement for their alleged mal-administration.

In the instance of the sending off of Aberdeen's Charlie Mulgrew (referred to above), Aberdeen unjustly spent 72 minutes of the match with only ten players on the pitch, with both of Rangers' goals being scored during that time.   Mulgrew's sending off was eventually rescinded, and Kyle Lafferty was punished retrospectively by the SFA's adoption of UEFA's Article 10 concerning 'simulation'.   However, Rangers'  2:1 win was allowed to stand, with their 3 league points retained ; when they had conceivably achieved their win as a consequence of gaining an unfair advantage by cheating.
In my opinion, for the SFA to concentrate on the conduct of the individual players, and to ignore the aspect of the match's final outcome, is a simple cop-out ; Aberdeen should have been awarded the game ; at the very least, the game should have been replayed.     The footballing precedent exists for this - - in February 1999, the Football Association sanctioned a replay of Arsenal's fifth round FA Cup tie against Sheffield United (the replay being called for by BOTH managers), after Arsenal had won the original game via a Marc Overmars goal, scored from an "injury-return" throw-in (expected to be passed back to the Blades' goalkeeper).

Lesson 6) If your team gets rumbled cheating, line-up a couple of individuals to take all the blame as soon as possible . . .

. . . in order to minimise the consequences for the team. This lesson, sadly, is as old as time itself, and has been employed to good effect by The Harlequins, Renault etc. This displays another common failing by sports governing bodies:-

Cheating only occurs when the emphasis on winning becomes distorted beyond all concepts of fair-play and self-worth ; this distorted emphasis can only prevail within a club or team which corporately gestates this attitude amongst its members. In my opinion, when an individual player from a team cheats, the player AND the team should face the consequences. For example, when was the last time you heard a professional football manager publicly condemning one of his own players for diving? – A criticism commonly made of Mr Arsene Wenger!

If the team’s management were personally fined (say 3% of their published annual salary) each time one of their players was judged to have dived in the penalty box – this diving phenomenon would disappear overnight.

Unfortunately, our young footballers will continue to receive tuition in refined versions of the “Klinsmann technique” from their highly-paid role-models. It is of little solace that the theatrical outcomes are often absolutely laughable - - if I wanted to watch third-rate acting, I would go down to the newsagent’s, and rent a Ben Affleck DVD, not watch a game of football.

“Eduardo da Silva penalty claim” [see clip below]

“Arsene Wenger calls UEFA's Eduardo 'dive' charge a disgrace” [see clip below]

What is “cheating”?

For some, there is a grey-area between a simple breach of the rules and an act of cheating. If a footballer brings down an opponent with a clumsy or mistimed tackle, or a bowler over-steps the crease, then there is no question that these are straightforward misjudgments. When a player (or team) premeditates an act designed to gain an advantage by misleading or deceiving the officials – then this is cheating. So, if a footballer checks the eye-line of the referee and/or assistant, so as to blind-side them before pulling the shirt of an opponent, then this descends into the category of cheating.

There is, of course, a third category, tending towards criminality; such as Roy Keane’s “tackle” on Alf-Inge Håland in 2001. In Keane’s auto biography, he admitted intending to “hurt” and “exact revenge” on Håland. Keane was no callow and petulant youth at this time : he was a 29 year old seasoned professional, who had been planning this assault for three and a half years! This conduct, plus Keane’s shameless subsequent comments, makes one wonder if such an individual can ever be suitable to be in charge of a pub team; let alone be responsible for the management and guidance of impressionable young players in a top football league. How can he have any credibility when giving team-talks inculcating fair-play? (if he ever does!).

The only thing to Roy Keane's credit, is that he made no attempt to deceive; so, it was more of a simple assault than an act of cheating; but Keane's current managerial status is indicative of the attitude of football directors, as to what they consider to be appropriate examples for their young charges - both players and fans. [see clip below].

For a game which is essentially VERY simple, Cricket is a sport which carries (suffers with) more written rules than most - with a plethora of variations for different cricket competition formats and localities. If this were not complicated enough, there is the much more gradated "Spirit of Cricket", in to which, practitioners of the sport are expected to be fully immersed - almost like some Masonic code of honour.

This brings about the paradox where a team (or individual player) may be playing within the written rules of the competition, but may be considered by some as being in breach of the "Spirit of Cricket" by having an attitude of confrontation, innovation or over-competitiveness.
The two most notable team captains who have found themselves branded thus (but by no means the only ones) include, Douglas Jardine (use of "Leg Theory" in the 1932-33 "Bodyline" tour), and Greg Chappell (underarm ball in 1981 World Series 3rd Final).
Interestingly, the latter is often described (but not by me) as "THE Most disgraceful moment in the history of cricket", however, it was totally permissible within the written rules of that competition, and occurred with the full advance knowledge of the umpires and batsman - resulting in a totally unique interpretation of the concept of cheating - "within the rules, but beyond the 'Spirit' ". [see clip below].

This "Spirit of Cricket" imposes an almost unattainable list of qualities, to be expected of a cricket team captain . . the leadership skills of Boudica : the situational awareness of Machiavelli : the ruthlessness of Oliver Cromwell : the wisdom of Confucius, and the moral-compass of Saint Francis of Assisi, plus an adeptness at dealing with the loose, short-pitched ball outside off-stump. (the preceding list being taken from the "Skipper Job Specification", as used by Llechryd CC's Appointments Committee;-)

Top-level cricket has long been haunted by the spectre of ball-tampering - a clearly legislated act of cheating under Law 42.3, and worthy of several articles on this subject alone.
It is to be hoped that this is largely a thing of the past, with the checks now in place; but I fear that it is only a matter of time before another high-profile cricketer, on the brink of retirement, explains within his auto biography how teams are continuing to transgress. One thing IS for certain - that the governing bodies of cricket have often failed in their duty-of-care to umpires who have been brave enough to call "foul".

On a much more parochial level, most of us who may have spent time playing and/or watching cricket in Pembrokeshire, will have witnessed the fielder who knowingly fields the ball with some part, or all of his anatomy sprawling over an ill-defined boundary line – the fielder then claiming that the return was fair, or pleading ignorance. The umpire – probably in the poorest of positions to make the line-call – in spite of his suspicions and the disparaging noises from spectators, will probably decide NOT to signal the boundary, for fear of seeming to bring into question the honesty of the fielder.
Un-sporting by the fielder? – Yes.  Cheating? – I’d say so.  Depressing? – Most definitely.

If the fielder’s team then proceeds to win by one run, the whole team can take no honour in the win ; and the losing team can justifiable believe that they’ve had their day wasted by a cheat.
Forget all this nonsense about “things balancing themselves out over the course of time”; this is just tacit acceptance of a worsening spiral of dishonesty.

Ignorance of the Laws, or too many Laws ?

As youngsters are introduced to cricket, how much time should be spent in teaching The Laws of the game? If we were to teach them all straight away, there would be little time remaining for coaches to work on playing-skills within the first two seasons!   As a result, many of the nuanced Laws are often left to be learned by a process akin to osmosis.   Perhaps this is one aspect of fair-play which is being overlooked. This leads me to ask the following question as an example . .
If you are a wicket-keeper, of any age, for a Pembrokeshire club (or an unqualified, volunteer umpire, who occasionally finds themselves umpiring at square-leg), Could you quote cricket Law 40.3 ?
If your answer is "No", then my case is made, and you have some reading to do (read here).
In Pembrokeshire cricket, how many no-balls have you seen, called from square-leg, due to the position of the keeper?

There is a case for saying that sport is currently OVER-regulated, and that the rot sets in by assuming that every possible occurrence has to be legislated for by a rule-book - which soon becomes unwieldy.   To reduce things to their basics . . . a group of kids playing football on a scrap of grass, without a ref and using coats for goal-posts, soon learn that if they can not make decisions by consensus, the game will rapidly fall apart. The outcome is the organic development of co-operation, objectivity and compromise.

After mentioning “coats for goalpost”, this next case would be hilarious, if it were not so pathetic.

The bizarre case of IFK Gothenburg's Danish goalkeeper Kim Christensen, spotted by TV cameras kicking his goalposts closer together (!!?) before their 0-0 draw with Orebro in the Swedish top division!! [see clip below].

If Mr Christensen has a preference for defending a smaller set of goals, perhaps, henceforth, he should be restricted to playing blow-football on his mother's kitchen table. As I said; pathetic.

There is a school of thought which claims that, “it’s all in the game”, and that these events provide good entertainment ; BUT, with the financial stakes being so high within professional sport, I believe that premeditated cheating of this type, is tantamount to attempted criminal fraud ; and, by example, has a corrupting influence on the conduct of our youth and amateur sports.

I would argue that there is an exact "moral equivalence", in the cheating which occurs in highly-financed professional sport, and occurrences in any local amateur league; the thought-processes and motivations of   "winning by any means" are the same, as is the sense of injustice felt by those adversely affected.

The perception of society’s wider  “moral deficit”  is everywhere, with the highlighting of the dubious practices of Members of Parliament, banks, large corporations, endemic benefit fraud, and “inventive” tax-return submissions. There is almost an attitude that those who do NOT take advantage, are in many ways, foolish and naïve : it should come as no surprise when this corrosive attitude surfaces within our sports, both professional and amateur.

A few years ago, a sector of the ‘politically-correct’ community, came up with he strange notion that school sports should be non-competitive, so that children would not have to suffer the “negative experience” of not winning!   If fully implemented, at a stroke, this would remove the motivation for cheating ; but, of course there is another term for “sport without competition”, it’s called “exercise” ; plus, most of us realise that the competitive-element is a key factor in the fun of sport, and the main motivation driving legitimate personal improvement : BUT, when an attitude of winning-at-any-cost, regardless of appropriate behaviour, rises to the fore – perhaps it’s time to fundamentally reassess the way that sport is managed, and how coaches can better instil fair-conduct attitudes in our sporting youth.

This website’s Editor has asked me if I have a pithy solution with which to close the article; or a ‘way-forward’ on this issue.
If only things were simple enough to be solved by the adoption of couple of paragraphs; and would that I possessed the wisdom of Solomon . . . . but, the solution has to be through example, education and proper governance.

Children (our sports men & women of the future) are creatures pre-programmed to learn by example (although they constantly contrive to convince us otherwise!)

Looking to the correct education of the next generation of sports men & women, it would be an excessive over-simplification to place the responsibility only with parents, teachers and coaches : influences - both good and bad - are far too numerous and diverse in modern society; but we should each be unequivocal in our determination not to accept cheating as being "run-of-the-mill".

We should never miss an opportunity to convey the message that:- a win (or a loss) achieved by fair means, is far more satisfying than one duplicitously gained.

To close - - - here is a minor examination in fair play (or otherwise), with a cricket umpiring scenario . . .

A bowler bowls a fair delivery.

The receiving batsman stays back and plays a stroke, attempting to send the ball in the direction of the covers.

The ball hits the batsman’s front pad with a loud thud, and goes in the direction of the slips. With this thud, the umpire at the bowler’s end hears some other noises, but he is unsure if these were caused by the bat hitting the boot, or the ball hitting the bat – either before of after the ball struck the pad.

There is an immediate appeal by the bowler, the keeper and the other close fielders.

With regard to a possible LBW decision, the umpire decides that the ball would have missed the off-stump, but, before he has time to give his “not out” decision, the batsman makes an exaggerated gesture, indicating to all, that he believes that he had clipped the ball with the bat, before the ball stuck his pad.

This causes another appeal from the slip fielders, claiming that second-slip had taken a fair catch.

The umpires confer, and the square-leg umpire agrees that the ball was caught on the full by second slip, but he could not say first-hand that the ball had come off the bat at any stage.

Based upon the batsman’s gesture, the umpire decides that the player is “out – caught”.

As the batsman walks past, he asks the umpire why he’s out. After the umpire explains that his decision was based upon the batsman’s gesture that he’d hit the ball, the batsman claims that his gesture has been misinterpreted, and that he was merely stretching his arms.

Q1) Was the umpire correct to give the batsman out, without having himself witnessed first-hand that the ball had come off the bat?

Q2) Should the umpire consider reversing his decision, following the conversation with the batsman?

Q3) Was the batsman’s gesture - in attempting to influence the umpire’s LBW decision, and his subsequent conduct, - within the “Spirit of Cricket” code?

. . . . . . all feedback and comments, gratefully received.