Top Special Offer! Check discount
Get 13% off your first order - useTopStart13discount code now!
cheating sportspersons
The investigation involves looking into athletes who cheated on classifications and judgements. The study focused on athletes with advantages (advantage=0 and advantage=1). Advantage=1 had a total of 166 sportspeople seen, whereas advantage=0 had 86 sportspeople. The data was based on a variety of elements, including the athletes’ standing, the results of the cheat, the judgments, Social Dominance Orientation, and RSE, among many others. Based on the frequency of the observations, the data was analyzed in SPSS program. Those with advantage=1 were perceived to be underdogs, with the majority of them losing when cheating since the majority of them agreed with RSE. On those with advantage=0, it was seen that all the wins were seen on the outcome of the sportspersons at any given time. This was also seen to indicate equality between the under dogs and top dogs indicated from the studies. This was seen to shown differences between when advantage=1 and that for advantage=0. It showed increased SDO’s across the different sportspersons included, between the extremes shown on the results. It indicated that the SDO proved more positive than negative. The RSE showed some levels of agreements across the sportspersons included in the game. This can tell that RSE was well agreed upon by the different players identified for the studies in place.
Key words: sport, cross-sectional design.
Introduction
Sporting is a very important exercise that one cannot fail to undertake. They are seen to vary from different games, ranging from indoor games to outdoor games. The outdoor games mainly include football, rugby, baseball, handball, volley ball, netball, hockey among many others. These games are very important in terms of body exercise and the mental growth of an individual as well as competition in place.
Cheating has been a very critical aspect in sporting, tailored to doctor better performance within people, wich can be seen on different instances seen globally within the different games, both indoors and outdoors, aimed at influencing the outcomes across different persons.
Football is one of the games prone to cheating in terms of cheating on the players, which can be seen on the instance of the game played between Lazio and Napoli in 2012. In the game, a player Miroslav Klose is seen to hand the ball to the net using in his hand, and claimed it was a goal (Karlson, 2012). Klose is seen informing the referee to change the decision of the score, awarded a free kick. This was a great principle in sports culture, loyalty and honesty.
Ethos is seen to be evident in terms of sport, during Olympic ethos of sport (Parry, 2010). This is a principle with several attributes in the art of sports among the different players. This is based on loyalty, honesty, fairness and the other principles portrayed in sporting.
Fair play is the first principle seen in ethos (Parry, 2010). This is based on players giving each other equality on the different sporting activities. This is to create a sense of fair win among them at any given point in time.
Loland (2005) argues that fair play is very important in the field. This he argues is based on formal fair play with the given elements of informal fair play. The formal fair play is defined with the better rules governing the activities in the field of play.
Objectives of the study
The study is mainly tied to three key objectives
To determine the status of the sportspersons, with and without advantage.
To determine the outcome of the cheating instances on the sporting persons.
To evaluate the Social Dominance Orientation of the sporting persons.
Method
Quantitative research is seen to be of great importance in studies (Muller et.al, 2013; Patton, 2002). This is based on the nature of the data on the sports cheating indicated on the study. This is what is mainly adopted by the survey in this context. This is based mainly on categorical and scale data used during the different studies indicated.
Study Design
The study designed employed in the study was a cross-sectional design. This was based on the selection of players within a given area of coverage within the study area. This was based on the concept of ethos in sports in coming up with the best methods for use. The design is according to the provisions of the work by Bowling, (2009) on the principles of survey. Creswell and Clark (2007) gave a critical implication on the importance of cross-section designs in place.
Sampling
The study employed Simple Random sampling techniques in identifying the players. This meant that all the sporting characters had an equal chance of being selected for the study. The
Findings
Analysis of Advantage=1
Status
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
ud
84
50.6
50.6
50.6
td
82
49.4
49.4
100.0
Total
166
100.0
100.0
Table 1: Table of status of Advantage=1
On the status observed, 50.6% indicated underdog with a number of 84 observations. The Top dog were 49.4% with a value amounting to 49.4% of the total observations made.
outcome
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
lose
85
51.2
51.2
51.2
win
81
48.8
48.8
100.0
Total
166
100.0
100.0
Table 2: Table of outcome of Advantage=1
On the outcome, there were 51.2% loses amounting to 85 observations with 48.8% wins amounting to 81 observations. This shows that there were more loses as compared to wins.
Judgements
Warmness
Warm
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
1 Not at all
27
16.3
16.3
16.3
2
25
15.1
15.1
31.3
3
30
18.1
18.1
49.4
4
67
40.4
40.4
89.8
5
9
5.4
5.4
95.2
6
6
3.6
3.6
98.8
7 Extremely
2
1.2
1.2
100.0
Total
166
100.0
100.0
Table 3: Table of the sportsperson being Warm
On warmth, 40.4% indicated neutral from the analysis made. This was followed by 18.1, less warm, as those who claimed they were warm 10.2% of the observations made. This indicates that the sportspersons were not warm.
Competent
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
1 Not at all
25
15.1
15.1
15.1
2
27
16.3
16.3
31.3
3
22
13.3
13.3
44.6
4
52
31.3
31.3
75.9
5
24
14.5
14.5
90.4
6
11
6.6
6.6
97.0
7 Extremely
5
3.0
3.0
100.0
Total
166
100.0
100.0
Table 4: Table of Competence of Advantage=1
On competency, 31.3% indicates neutrality. This attribute indicates that most of the sportspersons were less competent, given by the statistics shown. 3.0% were extremely competent, 6.6% being competent supporting the claim.
Honest
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
1 Not at all
86
51.8
51.8
51.8
2
40
24.1
24.1
75.9
3
9
5.4
5.4
81.3
4
18
10.8
10.8
92.2
5
6
3.6
3.6
95.8
6
4
2.4
2.4
98.2
7 Extremely
3
1.8
1.8
100.0
Total
166
100.0
100.0
Table 5: Table of honestyof Advantage=1
On the honesty of the sportspersons, 51.8% indicated that they were not honest at all, 24.1% indicated they were not honest. The findings indicate that the honesty of the persons was questionable since it increases on the persons being dishonest, reducing on the honesty judgements.
Likeable
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
1 Not at all
26
15.7
15.7
15.7
2
30
18.1
18.1
33.7
3
35
21.1
21.1
54.8
4
48
28.9
28.9
83.7
5
15
9.0
9.0
92.8
6
9
5.4
5.4
98.2
7 Extremely
3
1.8
1.8
100.0
Total
166
100.0
100.0
Table 6: Table of being likeable of Advantage=1
On the likeability, 28.9% were neutral, 21.1% , 54.9% being less likeable as 16.2% being likeable. This indicated that the sportsmen indicated little levels of likeability.
Skillful
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
1 Not at all
18
10.8
10.8
10.8
2
21
12.7
12.7
23.5
3
18
10.8
10.8
34.3
4
42
25.3
25.3
59.6
5
31
18.7
18.7
78.3
6
24
14.5
14.5
92.8
7 Extremely
12
7.2
7.2
100.0
Total
166
100.0
100.0
Table 7: Table of being skillfulof Advantage=1
On being skillful, 40.4% of the sportsperson were skillful. Those with no idea on their skillful capabilities amounted to 25.3%. Those with no skills amounted to 34.3% of the total number of respondents indicated in the respondents.
SDO
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
1 Very positive
8020
30.2
30.5
30.5
2
2690
10.1
10.2
40.7
3
2150
8.1
8.2
48.9
4
2460
9.3
9.3
58.2
5
2020
7.6
7.7
65.9
6
2440
9.2
9.3
75.2
7 Very negative
6540
24.6
24.8
100.0
Total
26320
99.1
100.0
Missing
System
240
.9
Total
26560
100.0
On the Social Dominance Orientation, the very positive amounted to 30.5% (n=8020) as the very negative being 24.8% (n=6540). This shows the differences between the extremes shown with the positives giving higher proportions. It can be seen that 9.3% of the observations were neutral, giving a clear indication of the nature of the Social Dominance Orientation among these people.
RSE
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
Strongly Disagree
2928
11.0
11.0
11.0
Disagree
6576
24.8
24.8
35.8
Agree
12176
45.8
45.8
81.6
Strongly Agree
4880
18.4
18.4
100.0
Total
26560
100.0
100.0
On the RSE analysis, 45.8% of the respondents agreed, with the number amounting to 12176 observations. This was then followed by those who disagreed amounting to 24.8% (n=6576). Those who strongly agreed amounted to 18.4% (n=4880). Those who strongly disagreed amounted to 11.0% (n=2928) observations. This indicated that most of the people were in agreement with the Rosenberg self-esteem as compared to those who disagreed. It can be seen that nobody was neutral on the issues placed.
Analysis of Advantage=0
status
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
ud
43
50.0
50.0
50.0
td
43
50.0
50.0
100.0
Total
86
100.0
100.0
Table 8: Table of status of Advantage=0
On the status of the respondents, there was an equal number of Underdog and Top dog from the given data. 50% was on underdog with a value of 43 observations. This indicated that there was no difference between the Underdog and the top dog from the data given.
Outcome
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
win
86
100.0
100.0
100.0
Table9: Table of outcome of Advantage=0
On the outcome of the sportspersons, all the respondents won in their various games engaged in. This is seen from the 100% response rates seen. The overall frequency is seen to mount to 86 observations in this case.
Warmness
Warm
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
1 Not at all
14
16.3
16.3
16.3
2
8
9.3
9.3
25.6
3
28
32.6
32.6
58.1
4
31
36.0
36.0
94.2
5
2
2.3
2.3
96.5
6
3
3.5
3.5
100.0
Total
86
100.0
100.0
Table 10: Table of the sportsperson being Warmof Advantage=0
On the warmth of the sportspersons, 62.2% of the respondents were not warm to others, 36.0% were neutral on their warmth levels as 5.8% of the respondents were warm. This indicates that the sportspersons were less warm to the others.
Competency
Competent
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
1 Not at all
8
9.3
9.3
9.3
2
14
16.3
16.3
25.6
3
11
12.8
12.8
38.4
4
31
36.0
36.0
74.4
5
10
11.6
11.6
86.0
6
10
11.6
11.6
97.7
7 Extremely
2
2.3
2.3
100.0
Total
86
100.0
100.0
Table 11: Table of Competence of Advantage=0
On the competency levels, 25.5% of the respondents were competent, 36.0% being unaware of their competency levels as 38.4% of the respondents being competent on their sporting activities undertaken.
Honesty
Honest
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
1 Not at all
44
51.2
51.2
51.2
2
22
25.6
25.6
76.7
3
7
8.1
8.1
84.9
4
9
10.5
10.5
95.3
5
2
2.3
2.3
97.7
6
2
2.3
2.3
100.0
Total
86
100.0
100.0
Table 12: Table of honestyof Advantage=0
Likeability
Likeable
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
1 Not at all
12
14.0
14.0
14.0
2
19
22.1
22.1
36.0
3
16
18.6
18.6
54.7
4
29
33.7
33.7
88.4
5
4
4.7
4.7
93.0
6
4
4.7
4.7
97.7
7 Extremely
2
2.3
2.3
100.0
Total
86
100.0
100.0
Table 13: Table of being likeable of Advantage=0
On the likeable attributes seen on the sportspersons, 11.7% of the respondents were likeable. 33.7% of the respondents were neutral on the observations made on the survey. 54.7% of the respondents were likeable. This shows that the sportspersons were likable as compared to those not likeable.
Skillfulness
Skillful
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
1 Not at all
7
8.1
8.1
8.1
2
7
8.1
8.1
16.3
3
8
9.3
9.3
25.6
4
23
26.7
26.7
52.3
5
19
22.1
22.1
74.4
6
15
17.4
17.4
91.9
7 Extremely
7
8.1
8.1
100.0
Total
86
100.0
100.0
Table 14: Table of being skillfulof Advantage=0
On the skillful judgements, 47.6% had the required skills in their races, 26.7% being neutral as 25.5% being with less skills in their races they engage in. This indicates that on those with advantage=0, they had more skills as compared to those with advantage=1.
SDO
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
1 Very positive
3700
26.9
26.9
26.9
2
1730
12.6
12.6
39.5
3
1100
8.0
8.0
47.5
4
1280
9.3
9.3
56.8
5
1420
10.3
10.3
67.1
6
1590
11.6
11.6
78.7
7 Very negative
2930
21.3
21.3
100.0
Total
13750
99.9
100.0
Missing
System
10
.1
Total
13760
100.0
On the Social Dominance Orientation, 26.9% (n=3700) were very positive as 21.3% (2930) being very negative. This indicated that the positivity was much higher than the negativity on the SDO implicated in this instance.
RSE
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
Strongly Disagree
1520
11.0
11.0
11.0
Disagree
3424
24.9
24.9
35.9
Agree
6576
47.8
47.8
83.7
Strongly Agree
2240
16.3
16.3
100.0
Total
13760
100.0
100.0
On RSE, 47.8% of the respondents agreed, 24.9% disagreed, 16.3% strongly agreed as 11.0% strongly agreed. This indicated that most of the sportspersons agreed with the RSE in this instance.
Discussion of the findings
From the analysis indicated, it can be seen that cheating caused the possible win of the persons involved in the cheat, which is seen on the various studies done worldwide (Thoren, 2013a; Thoren,2013b; Walker, 2012). This instances were seen to influence the results of the sporting activities in the several games played.
On the Social Dominance Orientation, they were seen to be more positive across the two groups in place. It can be seen through the various instances indicated from the research given. This is in accordance with several studies (Kosiewicz,2011).
On RSE, it was seen to be agreed upon by the two groups indicated in the analysis shown. This could be seen with respect to the several surveys conducted globally on sports cheating in different instances. Karlsson, K. (2012b) is seen to show from their surveys the effects of such practices on RSE at any given point. This shows a great problem of concern, in line with the existing studies.
Conclusion
From the results, it is true that cheating influences the results of sporting activities. For those advantaged, they experience more outcomes as compared to those who do not cheat. This gives rise to the element of the influence of the cheat on results and general outcomes, giving unrealistic, dishonest, unfair and unpleasing outcomes from the games.
References
Bowling, A. (2009). Research methods in health (3rd ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2010). Mapping the developing landscape of mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori& C. Teddie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed.) (pp. 45-68). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Flick, J. (2010). Hellnersrevanchefternorskestjärnanshån /Therevench of Hellner after the mockery by the Norwegian star/. In Aftonbladet. From http://www.aftonbladet.se/sportbladet/vintersport/os2010/article12180865.ab. Retrived 13-05-12.
Frändén, J., Karlsson, K. (2013). Materazziskängatill Zlatan: ‖Detäraldrighansfel‖ /Materazzis criticism of Zlatan: ‖It is never his fault‖/. In Aftonbladet. From http://www.aftonbladet.se/sportbladet/fotboll/internationell/italien/article16110163.ab. Retrieved 22-01-13
Gill, S. (2011). Forsberg: Slovakienvarenläggmatch /Forsberg: The game against Slovakia was a thrown game/. In Expressen. From http://www.expressen.se/sport/hockey/tre-kronor/forsberg-slovakien-var-en-laggmatch/ retrieved 130512
IIHF (Retrieved 12-11-06). International Ice Hockey Federation, http://www.iihf.com/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF/rules_part_two.pdf.
Plano Clark, V. L., Anderson, N., Wertz, J. A., Zhou, Y., Schumacher, K., &Miaskowski, C. (2014). Conceptualizing Longitudinal Mixed Methods Designs: A Methodological Review of Health Sciences Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. http://doi.org/10.1177/1558689814543563.
Karlsson, E. (2012a). Klose erkänner – dåändrar sig domaren /Klose admits – and the referee changes his decision/. In Aftonbladet. Retrieved 2012-09-29, from http://www.aftonbladet.se/sportbladet/article15510896.ab.
Karlsson, K. (2012b). Klose hyllasefter fair play-gesten /Klose is praised after the fair-play act/. In Aftonbladet. Retrieved 2012-09-29, from http://www.aftonbladet.se/sportbladet/fotboll/internationell/italien/article15512455.ab.
Loland, S. (2005). Fair Play: Historichal Anachronism or Topical Ideal? In M.J McNamee, S.J., Parry (Eds.). Ethics and Sport. London: Spoon Press.
Kosiewicz, J. (2011). Foul Play in Sport as a Phenomenon Inconsistent with the Rules, yet Acceptable and Desirable. In Physical Culture and Sport. Studies and research. Vol. LII, DOI: 10.2478/v10141-011-0012-x.
Parry, J. (2010). Sport, Ethos and Education. In M. McNamee (Ed.) The Ethics of Sport: A Reader. London: Routledge.
Patterson, S., Weaver, T., & Crawford, M. (2010). Drug service user groups: Only a partial solution to the problem of developing user involvement. Drugs: Education, Prevention, and Policy, 17(1), 84–97. http://doi.org/10.3109/09687630802225495
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3 rded.). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
Thorén, P. (2013). ‖Detskriksmycket‖ Charlotte Kallaomskällsordeniskidspåren /‖There is a lot of trash talk‖ Charlotte Kalla about the bad language at the racing tracks/. In Aftonbladet. From http://www.aftonbladet.se/sportbladet/vintersport/skidor/article16011817.ab. Retrieved 23-01-13
Thorén, P. (2013). Thorén: Ouppfostratochovärdigtav Northug /Thorén: Bad Manner and disgraceful of Northug/. In Aftonbladet. From http://www.aftonbladet.se/sportbladet/vintersport/skidor/article16287400.ab. Retrived 130512
Walker, P., Siddique, H. (2012). Eight Olympic Badminton Players disqualified for ―Throwing Games‖. In The Guardian. From http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/aug/01/london-2012-badminton-disqualified-olympics, Retrieved 13-05-12 http://www.svenskafans.com, (Retrieved 12-11-06).
Hire one of our experts to create a completely original paper even in 3 hours!
Similar Categories
Techunity LTD, Nicosia, Cyprus.
