Nr. 1 - Lietuvos sporto informacijos centras

28
SPORTO MOKSLAS
SPORTO MOKSLO Socialiniai tyrimai
Case-Study of Sport Science
Coaches’ attitudes towards deception in sports activities
Introduction
In order to win in the professional sport of today it is
not enough to be better; one must demonstrate abilities
reaching the limits of human potential. However,
the efforts made do not remain unnoticed. Sports
achievements allow experiencing not only honour and
glory, but also material well-being. On the other hand,
sports career became rather frail, i.e. the pressure made
by supporters, team owners, and the society compel
athletes strive for high sports results risking their health
and herewith breaking the rules of fair play. Thus it is
no surprise that the pursuit for victory requires using
all possibilities including cheating.
It seems that there is no doubt about the existence
of deception in sports; however, the question is how
we perceive it and in what forms it manifests. Most
often deception is attributed to unfair behaviour. But
this is not a comprehensive notion of it. In the general
sense of meaning deception is unfair behaviour
when athletes aim to win or gain an advantage over
competitors, or during an examination or performing
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Saulius Šukys, Edas Nickus
Lithuanian Academy of Physical Education
Summary
While analyzing conception of deception in sport the aim of the present study was to establish the attitudes of
coaches towards the spread of deception and its justification in sports activities. The data were gathered on a sample
of 95 coaches (10 women and 85 men). 27 coaches (29,0%) had been working as coaches less than 5 years, 30 coaches
(32,3%) – from six to ten years, 23 coaches (24,7%) – from 11 to 20 years, and the rest 13 coaches (14,0%) more than
20 years. Two coaches did not indicate the years of working experience.
We applied a self-compiled questionnaire with 19 statements to evaluate the coaches’ attitudes towards deception in
sport. The subjects had to evaluate how often the indicated behaviour occurred in sports using 5-point scale from 1 (it
is not common in sports) to 5 (it often happens in sports). They also had to indicate the degree of how such behaviour
could be justified from 1 (the behaviour totally indefensible) to 5 (such behaviour can always be justified).
Factor analyses revealed the five factors representing different forms of deception in sports activities: manipulating
the results of the competition, provocation against the opponents, manipulation with the rules of sports contest, athletes’
role-playing for their own benefit, and manipulation of referees and organizers of competitions with the final results.
The values of internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of each factor were respectively 0,81; 0,80; 0,77; 0,67 and 0,64.
Medium significant correlations were observed among them.
The coaches implied that the most common form of deception in sports activities was linked to the manipulation
with the rules of the sports contest. All kinds of provocations against the opponents seeking for one’s benefit were also
common. In the sports contests deceptive role-playing was not evaded, either. The findings of the study suggest that
the most infrequent forms of deception in sports activities were the manipulation of the competition results by athletes
and the judges and competition organizers’ attempts to impact the final results. The research data showed that the
coaches tended to justify various manipulations with the rules of the sports contest. Athletes’ deceptive role-playing
and provocations against the opponents were not so often justified. Least justified were various advance deals of sports
organizers and referees.
Keywords: deception in sports activities, unethical behaviour, coaches’ attitudes towards deception in sports
activities.
a task (Hsu, 1997). On the other hand, this general
definition does not allow grasping the essence of
deception in sport. Maybe, deception in sport is a
mere violation of sports rules. This perception is
grounded on the formalistic notion of sports, where
sport is defined by its rules (Morgan, 1995).
It should be noted that deception violates
both written (official) and unwritten regulations
and agreements of a sports discipline. However,
we should not confound those regulations and
agreements only with immediate sports contest. R.
Feezel (1988) suggests that by means of deception
it is possible to infringe the rules regulating athletes’
fitness for sports contest. Thus, deception is linked
to the violation of the selection of athletes. But R.
Feezel does not tend to associate violation of the
selection of athletes with deception as those rules
are not directly linked to the nature of sports contest.
D. Rosenberg (1995) supposes that breaking those
rules may ensure advantage in sports competition.
Naturally, the violation of those rules interrelates