Cheating in Sports

Disgraceful stuff yesterday in the Ashes.  

For those of you who missed it, England batsman Stuart Broad should have been given out after clearly clipping a thick edge to an australian fielder.  Incredibly, the umpire missed it, and didn't give him out.  Australia had already used all their challenges, and Broad refused to admit his touch and stayed on the field, despite replays clearly showing he was out.  Now, what Broad did wasn't technically cheating, as it was the umpires responsibility to call him out, but it was diametrically opposed to the ethos of the game.

What is this all about?  Has sport got to the stage where winning at any cost is all that matters?  We had it with Tiger Woods in the Masters this year, blatantly cheating, but declining the opportunity to remove himself from the competition after leniently being slapped on the wrist by officials.  So desperate was he to win a medal, Charlie Redmond decided to play on after having been sent off during Dublin's 1995 AI final win, while Lance Armstrong is still walking round believing he was the genuine winner of 7 yellow jerseys, simply because 'everyone else was at it too'.

I don't believe that it is down to the money or trophies at stake, as I see people cheating all the time in pub league football matches and club games of golf - this is about man's desire to win at all costs, no matter what the situation.  It's shocking.  It's just not cricket.

I remember getting away with pulling an opponents jersey once, i feel so ashamed now!

We are all cheats in one respect or another TC, should it be from the humble jersey pull, calling for a line ball you know you touched last before it went out of play or if you win 'roided up. Some GAA players have even been accused of play acting on recent years!!

I know what you are saying, BE, and none of it is right. Perhaps what gets me most about the examples that I gave, is that in all cases the cheat was identified as a cheat, yet still had the brass neck to continue as though nothing was wrong.

Maybe it is the brass neck that annoys me more than the actions!

Looks like Jamican sprinting is about to get embroiled in a massive doping scandal.....

bald eagle wrote:Looks like Jamican sprinting is about to get embroiled in a massive doping scandal.....

Jamaicans? I see Tyson Gay was caught.

Thomas Clarke wrote:

bald eagle wrote:Looks like Jamican sprinting is about to get embroiled in a massive doping scandal.....

Jamaicans?  I see Tyson Gay was caught.

And Powell!

So Gatlin, Gay, Powell and Blake have all had positive tests, yet the man who destroys them all doesn't. Hmmm...

If I was Usain, I'd do a Flo-Jo. Seriously.

And Nesta Carter too!  And a couple of the women.  As you say BE, a major scandal.

Here are the 9 fastest men of all time.  Spot the odd one out....

1 9.58 Usain Bolt       Jamaica
2 9.69  Tyson Gay         United States
= 9.69 Yohan Blake        Jamaica
4 9.72 Asafa Powell       Jamaica
5 9.78 Tim Montgomery United States
= 9.78 Nesta Carter       Jamaica
7 9.79 Maurice Greene   United States
= 9.79 Justin Gatlin        United States
= 9.79 Ben Johnson        Canada
10 9.80 Steve Mullings     Jamaica

Wow, when you put it like that it is a bit of an eye opener! Athletics can't afford Bolt to get caught as he is their pin up boy for sprinting! That said, Jamaica only had a drug testing agency introduced in 2008 and that had to be disolved in 2010 and restructered! You do the math from that!

Maybe Jamacia had an elite athlete programme riddled with doping but in tandem an ultra elite programme that produces faster athletes but without the dope.

OMAR wrote:Maybe Jamacia had an elite athlete programme riddled with doping but in tandem an ultra elite programme that produces faster athletes but without the dope.

And there are people who will believe that.

When writing about Ben Johnson a few years ago, The Times' Simon Barnes summed up the moral and human ambiguity regarding the 100m brilliantly, and it explains why, once every 4 years for as long as we all follow sport, we'll still stop to watch it:

“There is a part of us that still revels in the fastest men, in these superhuman champions, in these figures of blinding speed and overreaching ambition. We don’t approve of drugs, we don’t approve of cheating, but all the same, we respond to the speed, the ambition, the absolute earth-shattering glory of being the fastest man in the world.”

Thomas Clarke wrote:

OMAR wrote:Maybe Jamacia had an elite athlete programme riddled with doping but in tandem an ultra elite programme that produces faster athletes but without the dope.

And there are people who will believe that.

When writing about Ben Johnson a few years ago, The Times' Simon Barnes summed up the moral and human ambiguity regarding the 100m brilliantly, and it explains why, once every 4 years for as long as we all follow sport, we'll still stop to watch it:

“There is a part of us that still revels in the fastest men, in these superhuman champions, in these figures of blinding speed and overreaching ambition. We don’t approve of drugs, we don’t approve of cheating, but all the same, we respond to the speed, the ambition, the absolute earth-shattering glory of being the fastest man in the world.”

Another question might be has anyone ever run a sub 10 second 100m (legitimately)

OMAR wrote: Another question might be has anyone ever run a sub 10 second 100m (legitimately)

This guy, yesterday?  Pretty amazing improvement for a 25 year old.  Still, it's possible, as Linford was a late bloomer too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/23281670

Thomas Clarke wrote:

OMAR wrote: Another question might be has anyone ever run a sub 10 second 100m (legitimately)

This guy, yesterday?  Pretty amazing improvement for a 25 year old.  Still, it's possible, as Linford was a late bloomer too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/23281670

It makes him better than Dwain Chambers so make of it what you will. All we can know for sure is that Sue Ryder won't press him on his late development during a fawniing box pop at Sports Review of the year.

That aside who do we think is untainted Bolt,Bailey,Fredrichs, Johnson or Calvin smith or do we go back to Jim Hines ?

OMAR wrote:That aside who do we think is untainted Bolt,Bailey,Fredrichs, Johnson or Calvin smith or do we go back to Jim Hines ?

The reality is that we'd only be guessing at any of them.

Logic tells me that if a sport/event has an endemic drugs problem, then the person at the top of the tree is probably a cheat too, particularly if the event has an emphasis on physical power as opposed to technique. There are differences between humans, but we all have the same basic DNA, and for one to be born so much faster than the best of the rest, especially when the best of the rest are cheating, is extremely unlikely.

Obviously, there are exceptions to everything. Perhaps Michael Johnson was a freak born 50 years ahead of his time, and Bolt the same.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/09/01/too-fast-to-be-clean/2/

OMAR wrote:http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/09/01/too-fast-to-be-clean/2/

Assuming that Bolt is clean, he has run the 100m at least 0.25 seconds faster than any other non-drugs tainted man who ever lived. To put that in context, that is the same amount of time that was taken off the record from Jesse Owens in 1936 through to Calvin Smith in 1983 and, given that records become harder to break as they get lower and the human body reaches its full potential, Bolt's reduction is even more impressive still.

In other words, if Bolt is clean, he is at least 50 years ahead of his time.

So a cricketer fails to report a nick and a Tyrone man of all people goes off on a cheating rant. You have to laugh. Long and out loud.

I used to drink with a fella who frowned upon eating when on a session, eatings cheatings he used to say. He's dead now, choked on a chicken wing when on the razz, i knew he was a liar!

Thomas Clarke wrote:Disgraceful stuff yesterday in the Ashes.  

For those of you who missed it, England batsman Stuart Broad should have been given out after clearly clipping a thick edge to an australian fielder.  Incredibly, the umpire missed it, and didn't give him out.  Australia had already used all their challenges, and Broad refused to admit his touch and stayed on the field, despite replays clearly showing he was out.  Now, what Broad did wasn't technically cheating, as it was the umpires responsibility to call him out, but it was diametrically opposed to the ethos of the game.

What is this all about?  Has sport got to the stage where winning at any cost is all that matters?  We had it with Tiger Woods in the Masters this year, blatantly cheating, but declining the opportunity to remove himself from the competition after leniently being slapped on the wrist by officials.  So desperate was he to win a medal, Charlie Redmond decided to play on after having been sent off during Dublin's 1995 AI final win, while Lance Armstrong is still walking round believing he was the genuine winner of 7 yellow jerseys, simply because 'everyone else was at it too'.

I don't believe that it is down to the money or trophies at stake, as I see people cheating all the time in pub league football matches and club games of golf - this is about man's desire to win at all costs, no matter what the situation.  It's shocking.  It's just not cricket.

TC i would hardly call it disgraceful, if umpire didn't see it then i don't see the problem. Now maybe thats something of a poor attitude on my behalf maybe we are just hardened to the fact that sports stars will take any little break they can get or worse go looking for any little break they can manufacture for themselves. Is there any ethos left in sport or have greed and money taken over.

I wouldnt call Broad a cheat - if the umpire missed it thats their problem not Broads.

Bocerty showing his true colours here, is he really the Barmy Armys 'Billy the Trumpet?

bald eagle wrote:Bocerty showing his true colours here, is he really the Barmy Armys 'Billy the Trumpet?

far from it BE - in fact i couldnt think of a worse sport to watch and its a sport i can honestly say i have never sat down to watch.

But if an umpire misses something as obvious as it appears to have been (bear in mind i havent seen it) then you have to think to yourself its going to be your day and the luck is in.

See my first post on this thread Boc, we are all cheats to some form or other. Have to agree with you though, players play to the limit of the rules and push the ref/umpire to the limit.

bocerty wrote:
But if an umpire misses something as obvious as it appears to have been (bear in mind i havent seen it) then you have to think to yourself its going to be your day and the luck is in.

I think the difference is that it isn't soccer or football where decisions come and go in the blink of an eye. This was something that was seen by everyone except the umpire, and was then replayed on the screens. The game had not continued, and Broad had plenty of time to collect his thoughts and decide the right thing to do.

He decided that he would play on, and the winning score of 16 runs suggests that this was a decision that would have made the difference in the whole match.

To say the umpire didn't see if is basically saying that if you do't get caught, all is well.

bocerty wrote:
in fact i couldnt think of a worse sport to watch and its a sport i can honestly say i have never sat down to watch.

Give it a go Boc. It's one of those sports that, once you understand what is going on, it can be great to watch.