I could imagine a lot of potential scandals in the 2012 Olympics. But if
someone had told me it would involve a) badminton and b) intentionally losing a
game, I would not have believed it. Now I find out in this red-hot sport in
Asia that the Chinese tactic of intentionally losing to face weaker opponents
or set up an all Chinese final might be the norm.It violates the moral
foundation of being an athlete.
Four female teams representing South Korea, China and Indonesia with
members who are the best in the world have been kicked out of the Olympics. The
eight players were rightly exiled from the Olympics for “not using one’s best
efforts to win a match” and for “conducting oneself in a manner that is clearly
abusive or detrimental to the sport.” They join the six other athletes kicked out for drug violations this game. This game throwing was not infected by the
gambling that motivated the European soccer scandals. Intead, the women
intentionally tried to lose probably ordered by coaches or government sports
federations to create easier seeding for their teams. In an absurdist comedy two teams kept trying to lose to each other.
The players and some commentators tried to escape responsibility and
blamed the new rules that permitted round robin play and not knock out play. At
least eight other Olympic sports have similar formats, and no one talks about
similar incentives. Any advantages gained by such powerful teams are minuscule. Before
looking at the disgrace involved, I want to address
one other claim that such cheating may be justified.
Life presents opportunities for “strategic losing.” For instance a
lawyer might take on a case that he or she knows they will lose. The loss will help set a
precedent or begin a public argument or mobilize individuals around an issue. Politicians
pursue an issue they know they will lose to frame an agenda or begin a long-term
discussion. These situations do not involve intentionally losing by not giving one’s
best effort or skill. The loss occurs legitimately in real competition, but
serves a broader long term purpose.
Many coaches schedule tougher teams who
they know will probably beat their team but want their team to experience a
high level of competition and see what excellences looks like. Teams might play
younger players who they know will lose but get stronger over time, and the competition
helps them grow.
One variant seems closer to what the Chinese, South Korean and Indonesian teams attempted—to throw a match intentionally playing below your skill level to gain a competitive advantage in seeding. It reminds me of the perennial arguments the NFL, MLB and NBA fans have over whether teams should tank the rest of their games to get the number one draft spot or be in the lottery picks.
One variant seems closer to what the Chinese, South Korean and Indonesian teams attempted—to throw a match intentionally playing below your skill level to gain a competitive advantage in seeding. It reminds me of the perennial arguments the NFL, MLB and NBA fans have over whether teams should tank the rest of their games to get the number one draft spot or be in the lottery picks.
Every year the fans argue but as near as I can make out, teams almost
never succumb to this. Professional pride and reputation means coaches and
players do not want to be tagged in this way. Players play
for their own reputation and their statistics impact their own compensation. Forcing players to try to lose exacts an immense psychological
and moral cost upon the athletes who are fierce competitors, prideful
individuals and driven by every aspects of their character to push as hard as
they can to win each play and each game.
Throwing a game is wrong but the Olympics amplifies this. Olympic teams take
an oath to compete to the best of their ability and abide by sportsmanship. This is the Olympics where the best athletes from the world gather
to prove their worth and worthiness once every four years.
Athletic competition depends upon competition and uncertainty. The
reality of the competition gives sports its meaning and dynamic. Competition provides
the field upon which individuals prove themselves and develop. To take
competition out of sport reduces it to nothing more than gambling fixed games
or modern wrestling with ordained scripts. Throwing a game , intentionally losing, violates the core
integrity of athletic competition.
The moral algorithm of integrity in sports might look something like
this:
INTEGRITY = SKILL + EFFORT + JUDGMENT
With this in mind, here are the ethical failures involved in intentionally losing:
1)
The
player must rein in or distort their skill. An athlete must hit the ball out when it could easily go in or hit a bad
serve when they easily could get the serve in. They make deliberate mistakes of
omission and commission.
2)
The
athlete lets down their effort and gives less then what is required. A true
athlete exists totally present to the situation and commits his or her mind,
perception and body to what is called for. Holding back effort might be as
simple as a player does not extend far enough to return a serve or react as
quickly as they would to return a slam. Either way, the player pulls back from
what they are capable of and is required in effort.
3)
A
player must subvert their judgment to make bad decisions. This is actually
harder than it seems because it assumes the player knows what to do, and all
their training, pattern recognition and primed behavior push them in that
direction. The player must instead make a bad decision, knowing what a good one
is.
The moral wrongs of intentionally losing and throwing a game add up
quickly.
1)
A
player betrays him or herself and violates their relation to their identity as
an athlete. The athlete chooses to not play up to their highest skill during a
competition. The athlete chooses to sacrifice her or his exquisite judgment and decide badly, knowing it is a bad decision--this is not a
mistake, it is moral sabotage.
2)
Not
only do they betray their skill but sacrifice the effort they have inculcated
in him or herself to achieve elite status. Even if skilled and judging well,
they mar their actions with less effort bringing down their level of expected
excellence.
3)
The
athlete violates their promises to their teammates to give all their energy and
focus to achieve a common goal.
4)
Intentionally losing also violates an athlete’s relation to the integrity of the game to
which they have devoted their lives. The athlete degrades the very practice through
which they gain that gives them identity and worth.
5) Intentionally losing disregards faith with the spectators and fans who invest money, time and
emotional loyalty in following the team. These persons commit to the team and
follow its members and stake emotional and intellectual energy on them. The
disgusted booing and anger of the Olympic fans who came expecting excellence
and competition and got farce reflect this.
I cannot believe the athletes who did this believed in their
actions. Their entire body and being must have screamed out against this
betrayal of the Olympic ideals and their years of training. Yet in the end,
they did and deserved their fate.
After their ethical failure and moral insult to the sport, such athletes
are no longer the same persons they were before they intentionally lose. They
cheat their personhood.
I agree that this was an unexpected twist at the Olympics this year. While I agree that losing on purpose is morally wrong and it was the right thing to do to kick the team out of the competition, I still feel like the structure of the tournament needs to change to discourage losing on purpose. The system seems broken if you are going to reward losing.
ReplyDeleteIt kind of reminds me of a situation at the last Men's World Cup. In the Uruguay/Ghana match, Ghana was about to score the game winning goal when a Uruguay player blocked the ball with this hand right at the goal line. It was a red card for the player, but Ghana had to shoot a penalty kick and missed it. Ghana ended up losing the game, even though they should have won. The hand ball was clearly cheating, and morally reprehensible of the player from Uruguay, but the rules allowed that to happen. Basketball has solved this by saying if you goal tend, the basket counts. Soccer could do the same thing to avoid this kind of behavior completely, and I think Olympic tournaments could structure themselves in a way that avoid it as well.
I agree that losing on purpose is morally wrong. However, this is just a tip of the iceberg. There is no reason to accuse players if we know better about what is behind their behaviors. The ultimate goal for players, or for whatever nation attends Olympic, is not just for fun, they come, they see, and they want to conquer. If Olympic is all for peace and celebration of human mighty, why there are gold, silver, bronze medals? Why we just show to the whole world how fast a man can run, and how heavy a man can lift, and then have a party? The competitive system of this warlike Olympic determines there will be a winner, as well as loser.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the moral of Chinese players? They win for their country. It is the moral. I bet no players will like losing, but when it comes to how big chance you can win in the end of this tournament, you have to count the odds in, as well as strategic plan, just like NBA games or European Soccer. Actually, they cannot decide they win or lose, the decision is made by the team leaders in badminton group, because they want to make sure the gold medal is in their pocket. At this situation, the interest of nation is over the moral of a single person. There is no right or wrong. They are great players who play for their country and want to maximize their benefits to the country. If we stand at their situation, as a player, they are morally wrong; but as a Chinese, they are morally right. All in all, it is an issue way beyond the moral side. And the players are the last people to accuse, way after the tournament rules, different sporting systems.
I think the biggest misunderstanding between western philosophy and eastern or Chinese philosophy is when a player stands on the ground, what s/he is thinking matters. It can be : "I want to win and be a hero." or It can be: "I cannot let my county down."
My point exactly.
supreme clothing
ReplyDeletecanada goose
supreme
longchamp outlet
off white hoodie
nike lebron 15
kyrie irving shoes
kevin durant shoes
goyard handbags
supreme clothing
Thanks and that i have a dandy proposal: How To House Renovation house renovation services
ReplyDelete