Chavez

Watching a tennis match amongst two promising juniors, one an Australian and the other a New Zealander, earlier this year, I observed a very fascinating incident.

At matchpoint down in the second set, the Australian player obviously failed in an try to run down a drop volley from his opponent. Scooping the ball (which had clearly bounced twice) over his opponent's head, the Australian player continued to treat the point as if it were nonetheless "reside".

Meanwhile, the New Zealander, particular that the match was over, headed towards the net to shake his opponent's hand. link

With the exception of the umpire, absolutely everyone who was there, which includes the Australian player, knew that the ball had bounced twice. Despite a legitimate protest and an appeal to his opponent's honesty, the New Zealander "lost" the point, came really close to "losing" the set, and, I am positive, would have identified it incredibly difficult to win the match had it gone to a third set.

Had that been the case, had the Australian won the match, would it have been a case of dishonesty, not honesty, getting the best policy? Following all, when it comes to sport, isn't it a case of winning getting anything, even if it involves cheating?

And even if it isn't a case of either dishonesty being the greatest policy or of winning being anything, how do you clarify to a young player who has just lost simply because of his opponent's dishonesty that honesty is the best policy, and that winning, if it demands cheating, (or even if it doesn't), Is not anything.

Despite the fact that other people could disagree, it is my contention that any try to win by means of cheating automatically brands the cheat as the loser -- no matter what the outcome.

Aside from the reality that any truthful spectator cannot aid but lose all respect for a cheat, even far more considerably, a cheat cannot aid but lose all respect for himself.

No matter how hard he tries, he can not escape the negative consequences of his dishonest actions. He can not evade the truth that he has used deceit to obtain something (a counterfeit win) that otherwise would not have been his.

In so doing, he need to live with the self-information -- as well as the expertise of any spectator -- that he has defaulted on the principle of honesty, and as an alternative, become a cheat. He can never ever really feel pleased, in the correct sense of the word, about his so-called win.

For that reason, I would explain to any young tennis player who has just lost to a cheat, and who, as a consequence, mistakenly thinks that cheats do prosper, that absolutely nothing could be additional from the truth.

And to make my point, I would then ask him if he'd like to trade areas, if only for a second, with an individual who has a deserved reputation as a cheat, or if he would feel excellent about winning by way of cheating.

Discussing sports ethics with youngsters is very crucial for two causes:

The very first is that sport supplies them with one of the greatest opportunities to formulate the ethical ideas which they can then apply in all spheres and stages of later life.

The second is that sports cheats give the purity of healthy competition a negative name, and must, as a result, be roundly condemned.