Justifications for Unethical Behaviour in Sport: The Role of the Coach

Justifications for Unethical Behaviour in Sport
Although the philosophical debate continues as to whether certain actions are in fact unethical in sport or are part of sport culture, research indicates that high performance athletes themselves know the rules by which sport is to be played. Various justifications for doing so appear in the literature. These include the belief that everyone else is doing it and that makes it justifiable; that the end justifies the means and so as long as one wins, the tactics used don't matter; that if one does not get caught engaging in unethical acts than doing so is fair game; and if it is perceived that the coach approves of, or in fact requests, certain unethical actions, the athlete is somehow no longer responsible for his or her actions.

Everyone else is doing it.
Athletes realize that at least some of their competitors unethically enhance their performance through questionable means and, therefore, they may be putting themselves at a disadvantage if they don't do the same thing (Heikkala, 1993). The rationale of "others are doing the same thing" was the justification stated by the coach of Ben Johnson in 1990 during the Commission of Inquiry into the Use of Drugs and Banned Practices Intended to Increase Athletic Performance (Dubin Inquiry) to defend their actions in that situation. Athletes may feel that since others are doing the same thing, they are "leveling the playing field" (Cowart, 1989).

The emphasis on winning.
Much of the current literature about ethical problems associated with sport discusses winning and the problems that arise when winning is the only thing that matters (Arnold, 1989; Boudreau & Konzak, 1991; Eitzen, 1988; Lumpkin et al., 1994; Paddick, 1991; Ross, 1989; vanOosten, 1989; Volkwein, 1995). No committed athlete, whose passion, energy, and time are invested in a sport, will succumb easily to rhetoric that claims winning does not matter. Winning does matter; it is the immediate goal of every competitive game (Hyland, 1990). The ultimate purpose of competition is to win, but too often the doctrine of "winning is the only thing" means that the end justifies the means (Eitzen, 1988). "It is when winning is the sole purpose of sport that ethics and morality are cast aside" (Dubin, 1990, p. 511). For some athletes, the difference between winning and second place can mean millions of dollars in endorsements, public appearances, and sponsorships. Many of the ethical situations that exist in sport today are directly related to the overemphasis on winning. As the importance of winning increases, many athletes will use "any means at their disposal" to attain victory (Lumpkin et al., 1994).

It's okay if you're not caught.
Athletes engage in illegal behaviours hoping they will not be caught. VanOosten (1989) stated that it is acceptable, even prudent, to use banned or illegal performance-enhancing substances if you do not get caught. Feezell (1988) wrote about specific examples of cheating and noted that there is intent to gain an unfair advantage and deception involved. Gaining an unfair advantage involves deception since you would not want your competitors to realize that you have altered conditions in order to put yourself at an advantage.

The coach's influence.
For many coaches, just as for their athletes, winning is all important. Depending on the level of sport, the coach's success is based on two factors: winning and participant enjoyment (Gardner, 1995). At the higher levels, amateur sport (including collegiate athletics) is seen as big business and coaches are pressured by administrators to win or face the possibility of losing their jobs. "The coaches cautioned that much cheating and corruption can be traced to the intense pressures to win under which they labor" (Cullen, Latessa & Byrne, 1990, p. 61). With cutbacks in government funding to many sport programs, coaches and administrators are seeking corporate and private funding. One would assume that with the funding comes the pressure to win so that corporations see results from their investments. Coaches also face the pressure that "everyone else is doing it", but coaches must determine the appropriateness of a situation and react in the way that is in the best interest of their athletes. "Simply stated, young athletes model their coaches' behaviours and actions" (Kavanagh & Fall, 1995, p. 29). Stephens and Bredemeier (1996) found that the player's perception of their coach's goal orientation was a greater predictor of the athlete's temptation to play unfairly than their own goal orientation.

Some coaches mentally abuse their athletes under the guise of getting the most out of them. A few coaches have been known to teach their athletes to play unfairly (Wright, 1992) and to take drugs known to enhance performance (Lumpkin et al., 1994). A coach's attitude towards doping can have a lasting impact on an athlete's use of banned or illegal performance-enhancing substances. Coaches who condone drug use, and even provide the drugs for their athletes, have totally missed the boat on teaching values and ethics (Blackhurst et al., 1991).

Responsible coaches must recognize the power inherent in the position of coach (CPCA Coaching Code of Ethics, 1993) and recognize the influence they can have (both positive and negative) over their athletes. Burke (2001) refers to various forms of "manipulation" coaches employ that are directly related to the almost unquestioned authority apparent in many coach-athlete relationships. For some athletes, the coach becomes a substitute parent and in doing so becomes the "teacher' of many moral lessons based solely on how they act and react in sport situations (Gibbons, 1994).

To date, research on the athlete-coach relationship has been somewhat limited given the potential that exists for coaches to influence both the values and behaviours of athletes. Pocwardowski, Barott and Henschen (2002) stated that the relationship has three major components: (a) a technical component, (b) a social-psychological component, and (c) a spiritual component, and conclude that athletes change because of the influence of their coaches. Burke (2001) posited that the potential influence is based on coaches viewing their athletes as possessions and on athletes displaying loyalty and obedience without questioning the restrictions established by the coach. "The truth is, if you're a coach, you have authority over the players" (Clifford and Feezell, 1997, p. 75). They further explain that authority is the legitimate use of power over others. It is apparent that there is room for subjective evaluation in such a statement as to just what "legitimate" use would be. Laios et al., (2003) go on to dissect the concept of power and refer to "coercive" powers as those that could be used to punish or impose unpleasant consequences.

The approach a coach uses with one athlete may not be interpreted in the same way by another. Bower and Pelletier (2002) found that athletes interpret coaches' actions differently; therefore, effective coaching behaviour should vary as the characteristics of the athletes and the situation changes (Sherman, Fuller & Speed, 2000). Sherman et al go say their study supports earlier findings that female athletes have a greater preference for a participative style of coaching and coaches who demonstrate democratic behaviour. Although coaches are in direct contact with athletes on a day-to-day basis and are in an optimal position to teach and model appropriate values and ethics in sport, coaches receive minimal education in this area (Blackhurst et al., 1991.)

Methods

The participants in this study were 91 varsity athletes (31 males and 60 females), representing three academic institutions in Atlantic Canada. They were members of varsity teams playing basketball and soccer (both males and females), hockey (males only) and volleyball (females only). Varsity athletes were chosen for investigation because they compete at a high level of sport and would have been exposed to the issues being investigated. Due to the sensitive nature of the subject matter, a self-administered questionnaire was developed to collect data. The two questions under investigation were: what types of unethical decisions are most commonly faced by varsity athletes and what factors are most commonly used to justify engagement in unethical behaviours? To determine the variables, a review of literature was undertaken and information was collected from both undergraduate and graduate students studying physical education, most of whom were athletes, as well as from a group of community sport coaches and recreation leaders. The most common types of unethical behaviours identified through this process were: using performance-enhancing drugs, bending the rules, and using illegal equipment. In terms of justifications, the following four emerged: as long as you win, the means can be justified, as long as you do not get caught, if you believe that others do the same thing, or if your coach suggests it, then it is justified.

These responses were used to develop a data collection instrument. Using a seven-point scale, participants responded indicating the extent to which they agreed or disagreed that certain conditions were justification for cheating in sport. More specifically, the statements on the questionnaire asked, "to what extent do you agree or disagree with the following justifications for unethical behaviour in sport: 'if you win', 'if you do not get caught', 'if others do the same thing', or 'if your coach suggests it'?" Next, the questions were each paired with the three common types of cheating (performance-enhancing drugs, bending the rules, and using illegal equipment). A fourth category, simply referred to as 'cheating', was added to capture other forms of unethical behaviour that may be sport specific. Athletes were asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed that each type of cheating was justifiable by each specific factor. The questionnaires were administered during meetings with each of the teams participating in the study.

continue >>>

le Journal en français

MAY 2004
Vol. 4, No. 4
Front Page
CONTENTS

Justifications for Unethical Behaviour in Sport: The Role of the Coach

Discussion and Conclusion

References

Download a PDF of this article click here
174 KB, 17 pages

Print version of this article click here