Nr. 1 - Lietuvos sporto informacijos centras

2010 Nr. 1(59)
33
Discussion
The present study aimed at revealing the coaches’
attitudes towards deception in sports contest. The
factor analysis established five forms of deception.
According to the coaches’ judgment, most common
forms of deception occurring in sport manifest when
athletes try to manipulate the rules of the sports
contest; provoke their opponents in different ways
and use role-playing for the benefit of their team or
themselves. It is of no surprise that during a sports
contest athletes quite often imitate their opponents’
fouls, deliberately waste the time, pretend to be
injured, etc. Though not so often, but there occur
various agreements between the referees and the
leaders of the teams. The least often forms of deception
are athletes’ forward agreements. Such actions maybe
not known to the coaches, but they are quite common
in the sports world (Preston, Szymanski, 2003). They
are simply more difficult to notice. However, other
expressions of athletes’ cheating mentioned above
could be observed in the course of the game. It should
be noted that those actions were mostly justified by
the coaches. We suppose that the coaches treat such
action as part of sports contest. If the actions are
treated as part of other activities, they are treated
favourably. Different unethical and unsportsmanlike
actions become acceptable if the mentality “win-atall-costs”
dominates. In this way sports activities are
as a battle field where the rival becomes defected and
beaten (Coakley, 1994).
It is worth noting that the coaches least of all
justify the forward agreements of referees, team
leaders and sports organizers. This could be explained
by the coaches’ perception of deception and cheating
in sports as they defined it themselves. Many of the
coaches associated deception with the tendentious
decisions of referees and agreements between teams
about the final results of the competition. None of
the respondents linked deception with athletes’ role
playing, attempts to impact referees’ decisions and
provocations against the competitors. It is worth
noting that only a few coaches linked deception
to doping. We do not claim that the coaches are
positive about doping. We suppose that they do
not link the conception of deception with doping.
Besides, research literature contains discussions
about which actions in the sports contest should be
treated as deception and which are simply unethical
actions. Though doping is a most undeniable form
of deception, we would like to agree with L. Hsu
(2005) that not all violations of rules are associated
with deception. Analogically, aggression, violence
and athlete exploitation should not necessarily be
linked with deception.
Analyzing the research findings we should
pay attention to the interaction between the coach
and athletes (especially if they are children or
youngsters). Athletes’ actions in sports activities very
much depend on the coach’s values promoted and
decisions made. M. Guivernau and J. Duda (2002)
have suggested that athlete’s likelihood to display
aggressive behaviour is directly influenced by their
interaction with parents, coaches and teammates. R.
Vallerand, N. Briere, C. Blanchard and P. Provencker
(1997), D. Shields, N. LaVoi, D. Bredemeier and F.
Power (2007) acknowledged that interactions with
social agents (for example, the coach) influence
participant’s understanding of sportsmanship. If the
coaches follow the philosophy “win-at-all-costs”
they accordingly perceive their aims and strive for
them. In this philosophy there can be only one aim –
victory at any cost. If the coach stresses such a win
or lose environment it is argued that cheating and
unsportsmanlike behaviour may likely occur (Miller,
Roberts, Ommundsen, 2004). When coaches convey
an expectation of success at all costs, players could
be tempted to break the rules of the game in order
to satisfy this expectation (Broardley, Kavussanu,
2007). If the coach awards only the athletes who have
produced the best results and ignores other athletes,
antisocial actions in the sport context are encouraged
even more, and in contrast, if the coaches emphasize
personal progress and skill mastery, cooperative
learning and hard work with the aim of improving
skills, they stimulate to engage in behaviour that
benefits others (Kavussanu, 2006). Summing up, the
coaches can influence athletes’ decisions. Athletes’
actions may depend on the coaches’ perceptions of
unsportsmanlike behaviour. Thus, moral development
of young athletes should start from the very beginning
of cognition and perception of moral issues in sport.
Only then it is worth explaining what decisions and
actions are appropriate. So, the coaches’ opinions
that some forms of deception could sometimes or
even often be justified make us give thought to what
actions are treated as part of sports contest.
Limitations of the study and directions for future
research
Evaluating the research we should mention
some of its limitations. First, the sample consisted
of coaches who worked with athletes of different
mastery levels. It would be more appropriate to