1. Dr. Saulius Sukys Lithuanian Academy of Physical Education, Department of Social Sciences and Humanities

2. C heating in sport Topics of my lecture: 1. To define cheating in sport. 2. To discuss different forms of cheating: sabotage, doping, and match fixing. 3. To discuss two cheating strategies: strategic deception and definitional deception. 4. To discuss about cheating and rule breaking in sport. 5. Justification of cheating in sport by coaches and athletes: presentation of survey research data.

3. What is cheating? Cheating, it seems, occurs in all sports. This is not to claim that all sports players cheat, but rather that each sport contains some who cheat (Mewett, 2002, p. 292). Cheating refers to the overt or covert breaking of rules to gain advantage in a competition situation (Wikipedia) Most often cheating is attributed to unfair behavior when athletes aim to win or gain an advantage over competitors, or during an examination or performing a task (Hsu, 1997).

4. Cheating occurs when someone has contracted to participate in one sort of activity and then deliberately engages in another sort of activity (Pearson, 1995, p.184). Cheating is a violation of the written rules of a game, performed in order to gain an illicit advantage for oneself or for one’s team over rival players (Tamburrini, 2000, p.13) Cheating is deliberate violation of the rules to gain advantage while avoiding a penalty so that the opponents are not now facing the same test (Fraleigh, 1984, p.72) Cheating is an attempt to gain an advantage by violating the shared interpretation of the basic rules (the ethos) of the parties engaged without being caught and held responsible for it. The goal of the cheater is that the advantage gained is not eliminated as compensated for (Loland, 2002, p.96) Definition of cheating

5. Cheat also means to deceive someone who trusts you. Cheating can be associated with lying. To lie is normally said to deliberately tell someone something that is not true. Lying does not only involve telling the untruth. We may tell someone an untruth without at the same time lying, because we may not intend to present the audience with a proposition which we know not to be true (Leaman, 1988, p.278). So, what is the relation between lying and cheating? Lying and cheating can only be compared because lying is not only intending to tell an untruth but also trying to deceive someone. So, if lying involves a person deliberately telling an untruth by deceiving someone in order to gain the advantage, then cheating does not essentially consist of breaking the rules of a game but rather trying to deceive someone in order to win or gain the advantage (Hsu, 1997).

6. Breaking rules is not sufficient for cheating. If I break the rules of a game in order to save someone's life, then my action is not constituted as an instance of cheating. Breaking rules is not necessary for cheating. Although the rules of bridge do not specify that players shouldn't spy on their opponents' cards by looking at the reflection in their glasses, doing so would no doubt constitute cheating. Cheating and deception? The goal of a cheater is to “win” and to “get an advantage” by using a dishonest way in a game or competition. The goal of a deceiver is to make someone believe something that is untrue.

7. Definitional deception occurs when one has contracted to participate in one sort of activity, and then deliberately engages in another sort of activity (Pearson, 1988, p.264). Strategic deception and definitional deception Strategic deception occurs when an athlete deceives his opponent into thinking he will move to the right when he actually intends to move left-that he will bunt the baseball when he intends to hit a line drive-that he will drive the tennis ball when he actually intends to lob it (Pearson, 1988, p.263).

8. Cheating includes: Intentional acts Intention to be undetected Intention to gain advantage for oneself or one’s team, or partners Escaping penalty for such tactics (?) Deception is characterized by one more feature – its secrecy. 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. 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.

9. In summary, cheating in sport does not only often involve an athlete who breaks rules or breaks rules with intention, but more importantly, it involves an athlete's intent to break the consent (including written or/and unwritten rules) of the game by deceiving relevant agents (such as opponents, referees) in order to win or gain advantage. This consent contains not only the written part-official rules of the game, but also rules' spirit. What is cheating in sport?

10. Why cheating is unacceptable behavior? Cheating denies the implicit agreement or contract between competitors; Cheating denies a promise to follow the rules of the game; Cheaters arbitrarily subordinate the interests and purposes of others to their own; Cheaters violate the fundamental moral norm of respect for persons; Cheating could decrease people interest in sport.

11. Time of cheating Deception during the contest (this is associated with unexpected competitive actions); Deception not during the contest (sometimes it is practically impossible to cheat during the competition, so this kind of cheating occurs before the contest or after it, and is being prepared to and planned beforehand and deliberately).

12. Varieties of cheating in sport* Sabotage spreading false information about the rivals, putting obstacles for them to participate in the competition, etc.) Doping Match-fixing (manipulation with the results of the sports contest) forehand agreement about the final results of the competition, betting, persuade the referees to make biased decisions, financial benefit from gambling etc. Note. Adapted from Preston, I. & Szymanski, S. (2003). Cheating in contests. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 19 (4), 612-624.

13. Table 1. Research participants (student-athletes from Lithuanian universities) by gender and sport achievements The whole sample (n=263) Females (n=66) Males (n=197) Participated in Lithuanian championships 76.0% (n=200)72.7% (n=48)77.2% (n=152) Medal winners in Lithuanian championships 52.9% (n=139)63.6% (n=42)49.2% (n=97) Participated in European championships 24.3% (n=64)34.8 (n=23)20.8% (n=41) Participated in World championships or Olympic Games 7.2% (n=19)12.1% (n=8)5.6% (n=11)

14. Five different forms of cheating in sports activities* Athletes and teams’ manipulation with the final results of the competition “The team or athletes try to lose deliberately in order to meet a more beneficial team or opponent in the next stage of the competition” Provocations against the opponents “During the competition athletes try to overbalance the leader of the opposing team psychologically aiming to make him / her violate the rules” Athletes’ manipulation with the rules of the sports contest “Athlete holds the opponent by his / her clothes trying to limit his / her actions” Athletes’ role-playing for their own benefit “Athlete pretends to be injured” Manipulation of referees or organizers of competitions with the final results of the contest “The referee deliberately awards the penalty for an athlete who has not violated the rules” Note. This is not as general classification of deception or all types/ forms of deception in sports activities

15. Forms of deception in sports activitiesMean (SD) Athletes and team’s manipulation with the final results of the competition 1.98 (0.69) Provocations against the opponents2.24 (0.59) Athletes’ manipulation with the rules of the sports contest 2.69 (0.81) Athletes’ role-playing for their own benefit2.25 (0.85) Manipulation of referees or organizers of competitions with the final results of the contest 1.83 (0.82) Consumption of doping1.42 (0.89) Female athletes Mean (SD) Male athletes Mean (SD) 1.96 (0.64)1.99 (0.71) 2.08 (0.58) 2.30 (0.59)** 2.38 (0.71) 2.79 (0.82)*** 2.17 (0.85)2.28 (0.85) 1.73 (0.68)1.86 (0.86) 1.24 (0.79)1.98 (0.92) Note. Justification scale: from 1 (the behavior totally indefensible) to 5 (such behavior can always be justified). **-p<0.01, ***-p<0.001. Table 2. Justification of deception in sports activities by student-athletes

16. Table 3. Coaches’ sample The whole sample (n=95) Professional experience over 10 years54.2% (n=57) Professional experience up to 10 years45.8% (n=38) Professional experience with children as physical education teacher 26.6% (n=28)

17. Forms of deception in sports activitiesFrequency of cheating Mean (SD) Athletes and team’s manipulation with the final results of the competition 2.63 (0.85) Provocations against the opponents3.53 (0.73) Athletes’ manipulation with the rules of the sports contest 3.90 (0.67) Athletes’ role-playing for their own benefit3.42 (0.99) Manipulation of referees or organizers of competitions with the final results of the contest 3.17 (0.86) Consumption of doping3.15 (1.10) Justification of cheating Mean (SD) 2.04 (0.75) 2.32 (0.72) 2.84 (0.96) 2.23 (0.88) 1.88 (0.87) 1.40 (0.88) Note. Frequency scale: from 1 (not typical at all) to 5 (very typical) Justification scale: from 1 (the behavior totally indefensible) to 5 (such behavior can always be justified). Table 2. Frequency and justification of cheating in sports activities by student athletes

18. Forms of cheating in sports activitiesProfessional experience up to 10 years Mean (SD) Professional experience over 10 years Mean (SD) Athletes’ and team manipulation with the final results of the competition 2.13 (0.69)1.93 (0.82) Provocations against the opponents2.45 (0.70)2.17 (0.72) Athletes’ manipulation of the rules of the sports contest 3.00 (1.02)2.61 (0.83) Athletes’ role-playing for their own benefit2.40 (0.91)1.99 (0.81)* Manipulation of referees or organizers of competitions with the final results of the contest 2.03 (0.86)1.65 (0.85)* Consumption of dope1.47 (1.05)1.31 (0.95) Note. Justification scale: from 1 (the behavior totally indefensible) to 5 (such behavior can always be justified). *-p<0.05. Table 2. Justification of cheating in sports activities by coaches professional experience

19. Note. Justification scale: from 1 (the behavior totally indefensible) to 5 (such behavior can always be justified). Table 2. Justification of cheating in sports activities by student athletes and coaches Forms of cheating in sports activitiesStudent athletes Mean (SD) Coaches Mean (SD) Athletes and team’s manipulation with the final results of the competition 1.98 (0.69)2.04 (0.75) Provocations against the opponents2.24 (0.59)2.32 (0.72) Athletes’ manipulation with the rules of the sports contest 2.69 (0.81) 2.84 (0.96) Athletes’ role-playing for their own benefit2.25 (0.85)2.23 (0.88) Manipulation of referees or organizers of competitions with the final results of the contest 1.83 (0.82)1.88 (0.87) Consumption of doping1.42 (0.89)1.40 (0.88)