Download CHAPTER 9 DEVIANT BEHAVIOR AND SPORT1 D. Scott ... and more Schemes and Mind Maps Sociology in PDF only on Docsity!
CHAPTER 9
DEVIANT BEHAVIOR AND SPORT^1
D. Scott Waltemyer
LEARNING OBJECTIVES: After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
- Define and discuss different forms of deviant behavior.
- Understand deviant-related issues in sport, such as cheating and violence.
- Discuss the consequences of deviant behavior, and formulate possible ways of controlling it. INTRODUCTION “ To play this game you have to have that fire within you, and nothing stokes that fire like hate .” – Vince Lombardi, Hall of Fame NFL coach “ Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, disregard for all the rules and sadistic pleasure in witnessing violence; in other words, it is war minus the shooting .”
- George Orwell, author “ I went to a fight the other night and a hockey game broke out. ” – Rodney Dangerfield, Comedian American society places a great deal of importance on values such as competition and success, as portrayed in the aforementioned quotes. In fact, some of the most famous quotes from Green Bay Packers legendary coach Vince Lombardi reference, in some way, success and winning. Sports that emphasize these values receive considerable attention from both the media and the public, and play an important role in defining what are acceptable and unacceptable behaviors in sport. People within society, and specific social groups (e.g., sports teams), are expected to conform to and obey rules and norms related to what is acceptable behavior. The actions of those involved in sport, whether good or bad, receive generous amounts of media coverage, and those behaviors reflect back, not only on the individual, but also on the group or organization with which the individual belongs. And as the pressure to win is put on athletes and coaches, the pressure to perform to elite standards dramatically influences their actions and behaviors. The use of performance- enhancing substances, unsportspersonlike penalties, fines, recruiting violations, and improper relationships are among the many news stories covered by the media. These are the images and messages with which society is presented on a daily basis, and because many people believe that sports build character, every case of deviance in sports leads them to be disappointed (Coakley, 2007). Athletes and coaches engage in outrageous behaviors, searching for ways to gain a competitive advantage; all the while the media and fans glorify these behaviors (Eitzen, 2009). DEFINING DEVIANCE People who do not conform to social norms, or unquestionably accept them (often to extreme levels), may be labeled as deviant. Deviant behavior refers to actions “departing from an accepted social norm” (Woods, 2011, p. 318). Coakley notes that, “Deviance involves a departure from cultural ideals: the greater the departure, the more disruptive the action, the greater the deviance. Deviance always involves violating a norm” (p. 155). In other words, deviant behavior occurs when individuals, knowingly or not, act in ways (^1) Waltemyer, D. S. (2019). Deviant behavior in sport. In G. B. Cunningham & M. A. Dixon (Eds.), Sociology of sport and physical activity ( 3 rd^ ed., pp. 117 - 131 ). College Station, TX: Center for Sport Management Research and Educa- tion.
that go against, are different from, or involve extreme adherence to, generally accepted appropriate behav- ior within a group or society. Underconformity and Overconformity to Social Norms Although most actions fall into a normally accepted range of behaviors, deviance can occur in two different forms: overconformity and underconformity. Underconformity occurs when social norms are ignored or rejected (Coakley, 2007). Many researchers study deviant behavior from the perspective of actions and behaviors that do not conform to normal societal standards (Woods, 2011). Actions that break the law (e.g., assault, stealing, speeding) or break other societal norms and policies (e.g., cutting in line at the store, using employer resources for personal benefit) are considered deviant underconformity. Examples of de- viant underconformity in sport include breaking official rules, an illegal hit on an opponent, and taking banned performance-enhancing substances. On the other end of the spectrum is deviant overconformity, or extreme, unquestioned acceptance of social norms (Coakley, 2007). Examples of deviant overconformity in sport include an athlete following a coach’s orders even if they are against the rules, coaches and man- agers spending every waking hour watching film on their opponents, athletes playing through pain (and sometimes even injury), and athletes going through extreme measures to lose weight for competition. Alt- hough deviant underconformity often receives more attention and media exposure than deviant overcon- formity, Hughes and Coakley (1991) suggest that most athlete-related deviance is related to overconformity. They propose that deviant underconformity actions, such as cheating and taking illegal substances, is due to the underlying extreme dedication and striving for distinction and success, that is the mindset of many elite athletes. Coaches and teammates often encourage elite athletes to overconform to norms and high standards of training and competition (Donnelly, 1996; Howe, 2004; Waldron & Krane, 2005). In a study of competitive bodybuilding and distance running, Ewald and Jiobu (1985) found that men showed many of the extreme characteristics of unquestioned overconformity. Other research has revealed that many elite athletes, in- cluding cyclists, gymnasts, and wrestlers, have also shown characteristics of overconformity, such as self- injurious overtraining, unhealthy eating habits, and training and playing sports with serious pain and injury (Coakley, 2007). Athletes and coaches who underconform to sport norms are typically punished or reprimanded for their actions. However, when athletes and coaches overconform to sport norms, they are often praised and treated as heroes. Most elite and performance sports encourage extreme actions among athletes. The old saying, “no pain, no gain,” is a wonderful example of this, in which coaches and trainers motivate athletes to go above and beyond normal limits in their training and competition. The excessive conforming by athletes and coaches, due to placing such a high priority on competition and winning, can put considerable pressure on other social relationships outside of sport (e.g., friends and family), which may result in the unintentional sacrifice of these relationships and other responsibilities. Issues with Studying Deviant Behavior in Sport One problem in the analysis of deviance is that so many different actions and behaviors can be defined as deviant, no single sociological theory can explain them all (Coakley, 2007). When sociologists study issues in sport, such as athletes using performance-enhancing substances, off-field violence involving athletes, or coaches violating recruiting rules, they can be examined by a number of different approaches and perspec- tives, with no clear right or wrong answer. Another problem is that some actions and behaviors that are acceptable within the realm of sport would be considered deviant in other social realms, and some actions and behaviors that are acceptable outside of sport may be considered deviant within sport. What is normal in sport is often different than what is normal in other social realms. The same type of fights that occur on the ice during a hockey game would not be acceptable in a bar or restaurant. Athletes are often labeled as heroes and tough when they put their physical health on the line during competitions, or play through pain, but teachers who go to work sick are
(Lumpkin et al., 2003). Playing through pain or injury is often seen as heroic and a badge of honor within competitive athletics. Eitzen (2009) suggests five reasons why athletes may insist on playing with pain: (a) athletes are socialized to accept pain and injury as part of the game; (b) fear of losing a starting position, or even a spot on the team; (c) wanting to prolong their career as long as possible; (d) pressure from coaches and teammates to play; and (e) wanting to sacrifice themselves for the good of the team. Administrators, coaches, parents, and elite athletes who engage in deviant behavior are poor role models for young athletes. Whether they choose to be or not, professional and other elite athletes are role models for young athletes, and when kids see behaviors such as trash talking and cheating by their favorite players, it is only natural for them to try and emulate them when they play sports. TYPES OF DEVIANT BEHAVIOR IN SPORT Cheating and Rule Breaking as a Competitive Strategy On-field deviant behavior can take many different forms, but primarily occurs when players and coaches break the rules of the game. Some examples of on-field deviance include corking a bat in baseball, a goalie using illegal pads in hockey, faking an injury, and holding in football. Players and fans view many of these occurrences as strategies rather than cheating (Eitzen, 2009). Rather than attempt to match opponents’ skill and strategy, coaches and players spend time and effort on seeking ways to “bend the rules” in order to gain an advantage without being penalized (Lumpkin et al., 2003). Whether motivated by external rewards, or laziness, many athletes and coaches will look for ways around the rules to gain a competitive advantage. Shields and Bredemeier (1995) noted that many athletes and coaches interpret rules very loosely during competitions and create their own informal norms or rationalizations, which often bend or break official rules. As athletes reach more elite levels of sport, they have typically been playing for several years, honing their skills and learning the rules, and as they move up the competitive ladder, the action is faster, players are more skilled, and some rules become looser (Woods, 2011). There is evidence that on-field deviance occurs more often in power and performance sports, such as “good fouls” and “cheating when you can get away with it,” because these athletes and coaches use cheating and on-field violence as a strategy during competition (Pilz, 1996; Shields et al., 1995). Although more common in the power and performance sports, cheating as a strategy also occurs in endurance sports. In 2019, three Chinese runners were accused of cheating before (falsifying qualifying times), and during (exchanging bib numbers) the Boston Marathon, and were subsequently banned from competing in China by the Chinese Athletic Association (Sweeney & Ellement, 2019). In sport, there are written and “unwritten” rules. The written rules are the officially published rules for a sport, while the unwritten rules are informal norms that are generally known by athletes and coaches. For example, an unwritten rule in baseball is that if the opposing pitcher hits a team’s star player with a pitch, the star player on the other team should expect to be hit on his next at-bat. In hockey, a skater should never intentionally spray ice into the face of the opposing goalie. Athletes will often adapt to what the officials are calling or allowing during the course of a competition, incorporating deviant behavior as a calculated strategy. This might include a player using her hockey stick to slow down an opponent, an offensive lineman in football subtly holding a rushing linebacker, or a basketball player using her hands or physical contact to disrupt an opponent. One unwritten rule that seems to be broken on a regular basis is faking an injury as a strategy to gain an advantage. In soccer, players fall down holding their head or leg in agony, even if the opposing player did not touch them. Watch the World Cup or a Major League Soccer game, and you will see players “acting” in this way; one can observe similar instances in football, basketball, tennis, and the like. There are written rules against this type of behavior (e.g., delay of game, poor conduct), but if “acting” is not absolutely clear, the referees have no choice but to rule on the side of caution, because they do not know if the player is really injured or not. Most players would say that this form of cheating and rule breaking to gain an ad- vantage goes against the integrity of the game, yet if in the same position, many seemingly choose the advantage.
As an illustrative example, in a 2010 game against the Tampa Bay Rays, New York Yankee star Derek Jeter was awarded first base by the umpire because the umpire thought the pitch had hit Jeter. Replay clearly showed that the ball actually hit the bat, it rolled into fair territory, and Jeter was thrown out. But because of Jeter’s acting (waving his hand and holding it like it was hurt), which also involved the trainer for the Yankees to come out onto the field and evaluate Jeter, the umpire gave Jeter the free base. Jeter went on to score; however, the Yankees lost the game. After the game, Jeter made the following comment, “He (referring to the umpire) told me to go to first base. I’m not going to tell him, ‘I’m not going to first base.’ It’s my job to get on base” (Smith, 2010). If players are rewarded, and rarely punished, for cheating behav- iors in an attempt to gain an advantage, many will continue to do so. Off-field Cheating The use of performance-enhancing drugs is one of the most widely seen form of off-field cheating (alt- hough the purpose for this behavior is for on-field performance). We will discuss this later in the chapter. However, when it comes to other forms of off-field cheating, one of the most common places that we see this type of deviance is in the area of intercollegiate athletics. We often hear about colleges and universities getting in trouble with the NCAA for rules infractions or violations, with some of the most common violations being related to academics, amateurism, and recruiting. The University of Minnesota men’s bas- ketball program was put on probation by the NCAA for violations related to an academic advisor writing papers for at least 18 basketball players from 1994 to 1998 (Drape, 2000). Florida State University was also penalized by the NCAA for academic fraud (Dinich, 2009), and the University of North Carolina made headlines for sponsoring “fake classes” which benefited student-athletes (primarily men’s basketball and football players) by helping them remain academically eligible (Bauer-Wolf, 2017). More recently, the Uni- versity of Oregon (Caron, 2018) and the University of Missouri (Fornelli, 2019) were hit with NCAA pen- alties stemming from academic misconduct and impermissible staff participation in coaching and recruiting activities. When you take a deeper look, all of these actions were done to gain a competitive advantage, which would hopefully lead to on-field success. On-Field Violence within Competition Violence was practically nonexistent in early sport, when sport was played informally for fun and recrea- tional purposes, but as sport has become more competitive and structured, deviant behavior by coaches and players rose dramatically. As sport became more competitive, and an emphasis was placed on winning, violence became a tool that could be used to intimidate opponents. Athletes use intimidation in an attempt to scare the opponent in an effort to gain an advantage, and it can be a strong motivator for engaging in deviant behavior. Violent behaviors are often learned, and imitated, by athletes based on what they view in the media (Lumpkin et al., 2003). They may not do this with the intent to cause a serious injury, but in an effort to gain a physical or psychological advantage over the opponent. Violence in sport is also often praised in the sport media as “entertainment” (Rowe, 2004), as a hit in football that knocks another player off his feet (often referred to as a “de-cleater”) can be re-played over and over. As another example, the fight between NHL superstar Alex Ovechkin and rookie Andrei Svechnikov during the 2019 NHL Stanley Cup Play-offs was re-played for a week on many sport media networks. This behavior is something that does not happen within the norms of most other workplaces. Deviance has become part of the entertain- ment package that sports brings to fans, often giving consumers the opportunity to vicariously live out the deviant actions without any of the risks or consequences (Blackshaw & Crabbe, 2004). In non-contact sports, players are rarely rewarded for violent actions; however, this does not mean that violence is not used as a strategy. A tennis player might slam her racquet or yell at an opponent in an attempt to intimidate them. A baseball pitcher might use a “brush back” pitch to scare a batter from stand- ing too close to home plate. However, the use of violence was taken to an extreme level when figure skater Tonya Harding was implicated in an off-ice attack against rival Nancy Kerrigan, during the 1994 U.S. Figure Skating Championships. Kerrigan was unable to continue in that particular competition, but was given a spot on the Olympic team, and came home with a silver medal.
criminal charges for on-field deviant actions. Following these incidents, in 2005, the NHL adopted new rules regarding fair play and fight instigation. More recently, in a response to the number of head injuries and an increase awareness of concussions, the NHL has adopted even stricter rules and harsher penalties for blind-sided hits and intentional hits to the head of opponents. Professional athletes in contact and collision sports knowingly subject themselves to risks of their sports; however, the consequences for participating in these sports are not limited to the athlete’s career. The average length of an NFL career is around 3-4 years; yet, players may face physical and mental problems for the rest of their lives. Former players suffer from a number of issues including being permanently disabled, wheelchair bound, cognitive problems, depression, dementia, and anger (Woods, 2011). Use of Performance-Enhancing Substances In recent years, one of the most common deviant behaviors discussed in sport has been that of the use of performance-enhancing substances, which are defined as any substance taken to aid and/or help bring about a better performance or outcome, whether the substance is within the rules of play or not. Athletes taking substances to help improve performance is nothing new. As far back as the ancient Olympic Games, athletes have used substances in an attempt to improve their performance (Woods, 2011). What is new is the amount of media attention given to performance-enhancing substances, governing bodies becoming more aware of the use and implementing more aggressive testing procedures, and athletes and scientists developing more sophisticated substances and methods that cannot be detected or that can mask their use (Woods, 2011). Athletes have taken everything from herbal remedies and vitamins to synthetic drugs. Athletes use and abuse substances for a number of reasons: playing with pain or an injury, a fear of being cut from the team, a need to improve personal performance, and a desire to help the team win, among others. Because of this “do whatever it takes” mindset of many athletes, the temptation to use performance-enhancing substances is even greater, even to the detriment of their own long-term health. Athletes use drugs such as alcohol, marijuana, painkillers and anti-inflammatories to help them mask or overcome injuries, and some use other drugs such as cocaine and amphetamines to give them energy or deal with the anxiety and stress of com- petition. The culture of performance sports encourages players to “play hurt” or play with injury because it is for the greater good of the team. Coaches and trainers only compound this problem when they allow players to “pop a few pills” in order to minimize pain and get back on the field (Eitzen, 2009). Another issue related to performance-enhancing drugs is how different teams, leagues, and sports define what is legal and what is not. Many organizations would agree that synthetic steroids and amphetamines should be banned substances, but what about natural supplements and vitamins? What about caffeine and energy drinks? Further, over-the-counter and prescription medications are used on a daily basis by athletes, for reasons ranging from getting over a cold and congestion, to pain relief. Athletes who play with constant pain, and take pain killers to help them function, can be at-risk for becoming addicted to these drugs, as admitted by Pro-Bowl quarterback, Brett Favre in an interview with Sports Illustrated ’s Peter King (King, 1996). Athletes have taken stimulants for years in an attempt to focus or have more energy. The use of amphetamines, or “greenies,” was rampant in Major League Baseball during the 1970’s and 1980’s. Players played 162 regular season games over the course of six months, meaning players were constantly on the road and, in many cases, playing games six or seven days of the week. They were not getting proper rest and needed help getting ready for games, so they would take greenies to give them the energy and focus needed to play such a demanding schedule. Nowadays, athletes at all levels can buy and use caffeine and energy drinks, although some international governing bodies ban them as well. The use of stimulants is nothing new. Although the use of steroids is often credited with beginning by being used by former Soviet and Eastern European athletes, North American athletes have been found guilty as well (Woods, 2011). One of the most famous cases was Canadian sprinter, Ben Johnson, who was stripped of his gold medal after testing
positive for anabolic steroids at the 1988 Summer Olympics in Seoul. American sprinters Marion Jones and Tim Montgomery were also thrown under a cloud of suspicion and eventually stripped of Olympic medals for their implication in the investigation into BALCO Laboratories in California. BALCO founder, Victor Conte, pleaded guilty to distributing illegal steroids and admitted to supplying performance-enhanc- ing substances to other Olympic and professional athletes, including Barry Bonds (Woods, 2011). Although officially Barry Bonds holds the Major League Baseball single season homerun record (after hitting 73 in 2001), it is marred by controversy because of his relationship with BALCO and alleged use of “clear” and “cream” steroids. And more recently, Lance Armstrong, after years of denial, admitted to doping and using performance-enhancing substances during his cycling career, helping him to win the prestigious Tour de France a record seven times (Goldman, 2013; Macur, 2013). Industry norms help explain why many athletes believe they need to take steroids. As Canadian weightlifter Jacques Demers noted, “To go to international competitions, you have to meet international standards and those based on what the Russians and Bulgarians do. They are the best weightlifters in the world, and they take steroids. So, if I go to the Olympics, I must take steroids.” (Rozin, 1995). In fact, a 1995 poll of U.S. Olympians and aspiring Olympians (Bamberger & Yaeger, 1997) asked the following questions, and illus- trated the extreme overconformity of many elite athletes: Scenario One: You are offered a banned performance-enhancing substance, with two guarantees: (1) You will not get caught; (2) You will win. Would you take the substance?
- 195 said yes, 3 said no Scenario Two: You are offered a banned performance-enhancing substance with two guarantees: (1) You will not be caught, (2) You will win every competition you enter for the next five years, and then you will die from the side effects of the substance. Would you take the substance?
- Still, more than half the athletes said yes And the use of performance-enhancing substances is not just restricted to elite athletes. A 2001 survey commissioned by Blue Cross/Blue Shield Insurance Company found that approximately one million ado- lescent athletes between the ages of 12 and 17 were taking some form of dietary supplement or perfor- mance-enhancing drug to make them better athletes (Deam, 2001). Testing for performance-enhancing substances remains a difficult challenge (Keating, 2005) from both a technological perspective and also a financial perspective. Because different organizations have different lists of banned substances and different policies, it can bring to light many of the issues related to the testing for drug and performance-enhancing substances. For example, MLB and the NFL have instituted strict drug testing policies, and test both during the season and in the off-season; however, the NBA and NHL only test during the season, which leaves the door open for players to use performance-enhancing substances in the off-season when they are training for the upcoming season (Woods, 2011). When it comes to performance-enhancing substances, such as doping, human growth hormone, and steroids, with increas- ingly better technology comes better performance-enhancing substances (both natural and artificial). This makes it more difficult for drug testing procedures to detect the presence of performance-enhancing sub- stances in an athlete’s body, creating what Coakley (2007) refers to as “a seemingly endless game of scien- tific hide and seek” (p. 180). Off-Field Violence and Deviant Behavior In addition to deviance that takes place during athletic competition, there are cases of off-field deviant behavior. This takes several forms, including off-field violence, hazing, and eating disorders. Off-Field Violence Many people believe that it can be difficult for athletes who engage in aggressive and violent behaviors within their sport to just “shut it off” when they leave the field. Former NFL player John Niland once
attention; however, these same issues occur on a daily basis in our society, they just are not made public or played out in the media. Off-field violence is not just an athlete problem. Spectators and fans can become violent as well. Often, students will “rush the field” at the conclusion of their team winning a big game. This creates a very dan- gerous environment, in which people may be injured, or even killed, during these mob stampedes. This was the case at the end of the 2011 “Bedlam” football game between the University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State University. At the conclusion of the game, OSU fans rushed the field after their team beat OU for the first time since 2002, and during the chaos and attempt to tear down the goalposts, over a dozen people were injured, some critically. That same year, fans of the Vancouver Canucks rioted in the streets of Vancouver after their hometown hockey team lost game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals. Philadelphia Eagle fans are notoriously known for throwing objects at opposing players, including beer, or a battery hidden in a snowball. Hazing The National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS), which publishes rules for 17 different sports and oversees numerous scholastic extra-curricular activities, defines hazing as, “any action or activity which inflicts physical or mental harm or anxiety, or which demeans, degrades or disgraces a person, re- gardless of location, intent or consent of participants” (NFHS, 2006). Hazing is often a ritual, or rite of passage, for new members of a group in order to be accepted by the rest of the group. Activities can be dangerous, and even deadly. Athletes, like many other tight-knit social groups (e.g., fraternities, work groups), form strong bonds be- cause they know exactly what each other go through on a daily basis and what it takes to perform at a high level. Due to a want and need for acceptance, new members to sports teams will often overconform and do whatever it takes to be accepted by teammates. Many teams will have some type of initiation, which often involves hazing, in which rookies will overconform and obey the veterans, even to demeaning and painful levels (Alfred University, 1999b; Woods, 2011). As defined by the NFHS and NCAA, hazing activ- ities can include, but are not limited to, excessive consumption of alcohol, excessive physical punishment, food and sleep deprivation, engaging in sexual acts, vandalism, and other violent behaviors (Woods, 2011). Even after performing embarrassing and demeaning acts, many rookies will not report being hazed because of the need for acceptance and approval from veterans. After a hazing incident involving the Alfred University football team, the university conducted studies of both high school student-athletes and college student-athletes regarding hazing. The studies (Alfred 1999a, 1999b) found: Both male and female student-athletes (at both levels) are at risk for hazing, but male student-athletes are at the highest risk. For high school student-athletes:
- Approximately 48% said they had been subjected to hazing activities, as defined by the survey; however, only 14% considered it hazing.
- 30% said they were required to perform an illegal act as part of initiation.
- 71% reported negative consequences as a result of the hazing, For college student-athletes:
- Approximately 80% said they had been subjected to hazing activities.
- Overall, 49% reported alcohol being involved in initiation activities.
- The three sports most likely to be involved in hazing activities are lacrosse, soccer, and swim- ming/diving teams.
- Although men, in general, were subjected to more dangerous, unacceptable initiation activities, women, more often, reported the use of alcohol. A few university athletic programs have made national news, including the cancellation of the 2000 Ver- mont men’s hockey season and the suspension of the 2006 Northwestern women’s soccer season, after hazing scandals were brought to the attention of the universities’ athletic administrations. Consequences of hazing can be embarrassment, physical injury, and even death. The death of Alfred University student Chuck Stenzel in 1978, was part of the catalyst for the university’s 1999 hazing study, and has stimulated national attention and research into hazing. As of 2011, 45 states have some form of ban on hazing, ac- cording to the website stophazing.com. In another study of hazing in colleges, Allan and Madden (2008) found that 74% of varsity student-athletes, 64% of club sport athletes, and 49% of intramural athletes reported being hazed, typically as an “initiation” activity. Dietary Dangers and Eating Disorders Elite athletes are highly competitive and often put their bodies through extreme measures to maximize their chances of success. Coaches and parents can often encourage this. If losing weight or maintaining a more culturally accepted body figure will help athletes’ performance, they are likely to do whatever it takes to achieve this end (Woods, 2011). Eating disorders developed by many athletes is the result of deviant overconformity. Athletes in sports that focus on weight limits or physical appearance, such as cheerleaders, gymnasts, figure skaters, and wrestlers, are generally at the greatest risk for developing an eating disorder. Three of the most common eating disorders among athletes are anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, and compulsive or excessive exercise. Anorexia occurs when people starve themselves and greatly limit their food intake in an effort to achieve or maintain an ideal body image or weight. Bulimia is exhibited by binge eating followed by purging. Excessive or compulsive exercise is characterized by people exercising to the point of over-exercising, all in an effort to lose weight or maintain a certain body image (Woods, 2011). A 1992 University of Washington study found that approximately one-third of female college athletes prac- ticed some form of deviant weight control, and among female college gymnasts, the rate was almost two- thirds (Ryan, 1995). Although eating disorders are more prevalent among female athletes, male athletes do suffer from eating disorders as well (Sundgot-Borgen & Torstveit, 2004). Male wrestlers trying to make a specific weight class perform some of the most extreme weight control methods. University of Michigan wrestler Jeff Reese died after shedding seventeen pounds in two days, by limiting his fluid and caloric intake and wearing a rubber suit while riding a stationary bike in a “sweat room” which had been heated to ninety- two degrees (Fleming, 1998). Although these extreme measures to lose weight by wrestlers has long been the “norm” within the sport, after the death of multiple college wrestlers, the NCAA quickly implemented rule changes related to weight loss methods and the weight-in process before a meet (Eitzen, 2009). On the flip side, for some athletes, overeating in an attempt to gain weight can be just as much of an issue. This issue is very common in football, especially with offensive and defensive linemen. As the average weight of an American goes up, so too does the weight of athletes. In fact, there were only three players over 300 pounds playing in the NFL in 1980. Jump forward thirty years, and there were 532 players over 300 pounds at NFL training camps in 2010 (Longman, 2011). Coaches encourage lineman to gain weight because being bigger in the trenches can often give a team a distinct advantage. Though this may be an advantage on the field, if weight is not controlled after retirement, it can pose numerous health threats to these athletes. Although research is equivocal, some studies have found that retired NFL players are at a greater risk for high blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes, and stroke, and have a higher mortality rate than the general population (Longman, 2011). Jerry Kramer, a former All-Pro lineman for the Green Bay Packers, once said, “Fat doesn’t make you strong and quick. It makes you heavy. We’ve gotten enamored with the 300-pounder, but give me an offensive guard who’s in great shape at 270 or 275 and understands leverage and positioning, and I’ll bet he’ll whip the fat guy every time” (Longman, 2011, p. 1D). In fact, the
CHAPTER SUMMARY
The nature of competitive sport requires commitment and dedication in order to be successful. Athletes and coaches throughout history have looked for ways to gain an advantage over an opponent, and some- times this dedication results in deviant behavior. Deviant behavior is condoned, taught, and even rewarded because of the value placed on winning in competitive sport. The expected norm in sport is to push the rules and officials as far as possible, and live on the edge of risk and reward, in order to win. Although the majority of sport-related actions fall within normal ranges of acceptable behavior, when athletes and coaches do engage in deviant behavior, it can take the form of overconformity, or underconformity, to sport and social norms. Whether it is in-game cheating as a strategy or the taking of performance-enhancing substances during training, deviant behaviors in sport will continue unless those who control sport re- examine their motives and reflect on the purpose and meaning of sport in society. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
- What would you define as “deviant behavior”? Do you think that the range of acceptable behavior changes over time? Why or why not?
- Do you believe that certain types of deviant behavior are worse than others? If yes, give some examples and explain why. If no, why not?
- Coaches are teachers, and are often looked up to as parental figures. What lessons are coaches teaching if they ask their players to cheat?
- Should intimidation be taught, and used, as a strategy to win? How far is too far?
- What suggestions do you have for sport organizations and governing bodies when it comes to controlling deviant behavior, such as cheating and rule breaking, using violence as a strategy, taking performance-enhancing substances, or engaging in extreme dietary measures? RECOMMENDED READINGS Margolis, J. A. (1999). Violence in sports: Victory at what price? Berkeley Heights, NJ: Enslow Publishers. (This book examines how violence in many of today’s sports is seen as just part of the game, even if those actions would get you arrested if performed outside of sport. It discusses the influence that parents, coaches and the media have on athletes, reasons for violence within our sporting culture today, and how we as a society need to re-examine our attitudes and values. McCloskey, J., & Bailes, J. E. (2005). When winning costs too much: Steroids, supplements, and scandal in today’s sports. Boulder, CO: Taylor Trade Publishing. (This book examines the issue, and place, of perfor- mance-enhancing drugs in today’s sports. It takes a look at why many coaches encourage the use of performance-enhancing substances, why many athletes are prone to use them, and how much of this motivation is created by our culture placing such a high value on winning. The authors also present possible solutions to the issue of performance-enhancing drug use in sports.) REFERENCES Alfred University. (1999a). High school hazing: How many students are hazed? Retrieved from http://www.alfred.edu. Alfred University. (1999b). National survey of NCAA sports teams. Retrieved from http://www.al- fred.edu. Allan, E. J., & Madden, M. (2008). Hazing in view: College students at risk. Retrieved from https://www.stophazing.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/hazing_in_view_web1.pdf Associated Press. (2018, April 19). A timeline of Lance Armstrong’s cycling career. USA Today. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cycling/2018/04/19/a-timeline-of-lance-arm- strongs-cycling-career/33994779/ Bamberger, M., & Yaeger, D. (1997, April, 14). Over the edge: Aware that drug testing is a sham, athletes seem to rely more than ever on banned performance enhancers. Sports Illustrated , pp. 62.
Bauer-Wolf, J. (2017, October 16). NCAA: No academic violations at UNC. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/10/16/breaking-ncaa-finds-no-academic-fraud- unc Benedict, J., & Keteyian, A. (2011, March 2). College football and crime. SI.com. Retrieved from http://si.com. Benedict, J., & Yaeger, D. (1998). Pros and cons: The criminals who play in the NFL. New York, NY: Warner Books. Blackshaw, T., & Crabbe, T. (2004). New perspective on sport and ‘deviance’: Consumption, performativity, and social control. London: Routledge. Blumstein, A., & Benedict, J. (1999). Criminal violence of NFL players compared to the general population. Chance, 12, 12-15. Bredemeier, B. L., & Shields, D. L. (2006). Sports and character development. President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports. Research Digest , 7. Caron, E. (2018, December 5). Oregon basketball hit with two-year probation after NCAA investigation. Sports Illustrated. Retrieved from https://www.si.com/college-basketball/2018/12/05/oregon-basket- ball-ncaa-investigation-two-year-probation-penalties Coakley, J. (2007). Sports in society: Issues and controversies (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Deam, J. (2001, September 9). Sports craze. Denver Post , pp. 4K. Deitsch, R. (2009). Dirtiest NFL player: Steelers’ Ward. SI.com. Retrieved from www.si.com. Dinich, H. (2009, March 7). NCAA penalities extend to 10 FSU sports. ESPN. Retrieved from http://www.espn.com/college-football/news/story?id= Donnelly, P. (1996). The local and the global: Globalization in the sociology of sport. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 20, 239 - 257. Drape, J. (2000, October 25). Minnesota penalized by NCAA. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/25/sports/college-basketball-minnesota-penalized-by- ncaa.html Dunning, E. (1999). Sport matters: Sociological studies of sport, violence, and civilization. London: Routledge. Eitzen, D. S. (2009). Fair and foul: Beyond the myths and paradoxes of sport (4th ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. ESPN. (2011). The steroids era. ESPN. Retrieved from www.espn.com. Ewald, K., & Jiobu, R. M. (1985). Explaining positive deviance: Becker’s model and the case of runners and bodybuilders. Sociology of Sport Journal, 2 , 144-156. Falk, W. B. (1995, January 8). Bringing home the violence. Newsday , pp. 12-13. Fleming, D. (1998, January 5). Wrestling’s dirty secret. Sports Illustrated, pp. 134. Fornelli, T. (2019, January 31). NCAA hits Missouri with one-year postseason ban, recruiting restrictions for academic violations. CBS Sports. Retrieved from https://www.cbssports.com/college-foot- ball/news/ncaa-hits-missouri-with-one-year-postseason-ban-recruiting-restrictions-for-academic-vio- lations/ Freeman, M. (1998, September 6). A cycle of violence, on the field and off. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com. Goldman, R. (2013, January 17). Lance Armstrong admits to doping. ABC News. Retrieved from https://abcnews.go.com/US/lance-armstrong-confesses-doping/story?id= Howe, P. D. (2004). Sport, professionalism and pain: Ethnographies of injury and risk. London: Routledge. Hughes, R., & Coakley, J. (1991). Positive deviance among athletes: The implications of overconformity to the sport ethics. Sociology of Sport Journal, 8 , 307-325. Jones, D. (2013, April 3). Rutgers basketball coach fired after abuse video surfaces. Reuters. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-rutgers-coach-idINDEE9320CL Keating, P. (2005, December 5). Baseball has solved its steroid problem – at least that’s what they want you to believe. ESPN The Magazine. King, P. (1996, May 27). Bitter pill. Sports Illustrated. Retrieved from www.si.com. Lapchick, R. (1999). Race, athletes and crime. Special Issue, Sports Business Journal. Levy, D. (1993, June 2). Steroid mood effect “dramatic.” USA Today , pp. 1A.
