Nr. 1 - Lietuvos sporto informacijos centras

2010 Nr. 1(59)
29
with gaining access to the competition, forging
inventory, taking forbidden medications. In this
way he distinguishes two categories of deception in
sport: deception during the contest and deception
not during the contest. Deception during the contest
is associated with unexpected competitive actions
which violate the main rules regulating athletes’
actions during the contest, and in this way cheating
helps them to create favourable conditions for one or
another side aiming to benefit from the situation and
achieve advantageous results, usually victory. For
example, a goal in football is sometimes scored by
hand. One memorable event occurred in the Football
World Championship in 1986. Straining towards the
goal of the English team Diego Maradona threw the
ball over the goalkeeper Peter Shilton and made a
goal. The referee scored it up. In this championship
the national team of Argentina won the title of World
champions. This incident evoked lots of discussions
among football specialists and fans. It should be
noted that not only athletes, but also referees and
contest organizers can cheat during a sports contest
because the course of the contest depends on them
much. According to D. Rosenberg (1995), deception
not during the contest is closely (but not always)
linked to deception during the contest. In some
sports it is practically impossible to cheat during
the competition (for example, in sprint). Usually
deception is impossible in those sports where the
mastery level of each athlete is compared, and athletes
have no possibilities for cheating. Time, space and
judicial conditions together with indirect relations
with competitors limit the opportunities for deception
which depend on the mastery level of the athlete.
Deception in those cases usually occurs before the
contest and after it. In general, deception not during
the contest is possible in all sports. It must be noted
that this kind of deception is being prepared to and
planned beforehand and deliberately.
Deception is characterized by one more feature –
its secrecy (Fraleigh, 1988). It means that the one
who is cheating wants to remain unnoticed and to
show that nothing has happened. Cheaters usually
want the contest to continue because otherwise their
cheating would be senseless. Cheating can be open
as well (Rosenberg, 1995). For example, the case
of unsportsmanlike conduct penalty for the rough
violation of rules. However, those actions are not
common and they are not tolerated by the sports
community. So many athletes try to cheat secretly and
not cause any suspicion of breaking the system of the
sports contest, i.e. they want to remain unobserved
and protected by the system itself.
It should be noted that sport is treated in the
sense of its regulations and obstacles created by the
same regulations. Besides, artificial obstacles can
be perceived only in the connection of regulations.
Regulations define what actions are allowed during a
sports contest and who a winner is. But the formalistic
outlook (where deception is associated with breaking
the rules) helps neither defining what deception is
nor solving other problems of sports ethics. For
example, from a formalistic standpoint (if we perceive
deception as breaking the rules) a cheater cannot
win as he/she simply breaks the rules and does not
perform actions necessary for this sport or game. In
this way he/she does not play the game and cannot
win. Unfortunately, the situation in sport is much
more complicated. Sometimes athletes’ actions may
not be fair though the rules are not broken, and in
some situations there are no rules at all. The rules
themselves can be changed, and there are no rules
indicating how the rules must be followed. Besides,
during a sports contest there are many violations
which are simply the actions of the game, they
cannot be treated as unfair actions, and they are
not beneficial to the athlete. Some violations of the
rules are evaluated as a “part of the game” because
they are socially acceptable. L. Hsu (1997) suggests
that it is not enough to associate deception with the
violation of the rules, because deception includes not
only the violation of formal rules. W. Fraleigh (2003)
emphasizes that deception is deliberate violation
of rules aiming for benefit for oneself or the team
and avoiding penalty (foul, exclusion, etc.) for such
actions so that the competitor did not oppose such
actions. S. Loland (2005) analogically suggests that
deception is actions deliberately violating agreements
between the participants of the contest aiming to
avoid being caught for such behaviour (for example,
persons taking doping deny it even when they are
caught doing that). Most often the responsibility
for such behaviour lies on the people who behave
like that. Thus deception is athletes’ actions when
other athletes are compelled to believe what is not
true in reality and when the cheating athletes want
to gain an advantage against other athletes. In sports
deception manifests when athletes try to deceive the
rivals or the referee and other people involved in
sports activities, when cheating athletes want to win
or gain an advantage dishonestly. Deception is as an
unethical action against the main aim of sports contest