I listen to a sports radio talk station on my commute to and from school. The New England Patriots' controversy over the tampering of the footballs is all over the airwaves. People's opinions on what was allegedly done are across the spectrum.
We could argue the PSI scale, temperature, or even debate the statistical fact that the Patriots have the lowest rate of fumbles over the course of time (the avoidance rate is truly unbelievable in comparison with the rest of the League) Regardless, it is disturbing to hear the discussion about cheating in general.
Cheat is a verb that comes to us from the mid 15th century-Old French. Originally, "to escheat"-was a legal term for a revamped piece of property which would be the state's if the owner died without apparent heirs. In these feudal times, the royal officials who were appointed to receive dues and taxes, handled the estates. There was much finagling, and the heirs were done out of some large sums of money by the "escheators." The officers who, as a group, were labeled cheaters because of their soiled reputations based on depriving and unfairly confiscating gains that did not belong to them. As a noun, a cheater, in the 1530s meant, "a dishonest player."
When I was growing up, my brother and I would play many games. Games have rules. Because I was a "girl" and five years younger you would think I'd get 'a break' or a 'handicap' to make it 'more' even. No, I did not. One of the most valuable lessons my brother taught me (perhaps, even unknowingly) was that if I was to beat him at any competitive activity where it was me against him, I was to win fair and square. The beginning points were the same, the rules were the same, the equipment and guidelines were the same, all was played on a level playing field. No advantage to either. I lost many a time to my brother, but the few times I did win a game of ping-pong, or chess, or a game he even invented, I gloried in the fact the the victory was pure, and deserved.
What disturbs me is how the idea of cheating can somehow be ok; worse yet, how it can be justified. Most students take the view that the worse thing about cheating is getting caught. The next common perspective, even among adults, is that all teams, if they could get a way with it and were able to find some kind of advantage over their opponents is acceptable, what's the big deal? In fact, one caller boasted that they were even proud of coach Belichick for being "so clever" to think of something like deflating the footballs.
I recently discussed this issue with other colleagues who are sports fans. One had an interesting take on the controversy. She trusted the Patriots as a team...and couldn't get over the fact that the possibility was even plausible for them to cheat. Another, Natalie Barranca said, "How can you ever feel like a true champion if you cheat to win?"
I've heard countless times the phrase, "do what it takes to get the competitive edge." I might be old school in how I see things, but the childhood phrase that rings in my ears to this day is - "Winners never cheat and cheaters never win."
It takes a degree of arrogance and hubris on the part of those who choose to cheat. Whether it's the swindling policies of big business, the spouse or significant other who discards promises in order to take advantage of a situation with 'another' to even a competitor playing a game--it is cheating, they are a cheater. They spoil the intrinsic nature of fairness...there are no degrees to fairness, either something is fair or it is not- for all involved.
Yes, there will be a winner and a loser in the Super Bowl.
A team will lift the trophy, but I'd like to suggest a big plaque also be given to the 'losers' of the contest that is engraved with the wise words of Sophocles: "I would prefer even to fail with honor than to win by cheating."