Why Sport Matters and The Sports Ethic

from SportMatters.org:
http://www.sportmatters.org.au/why_sport.php

Why Sport?

Access to sport and physical activity is a fundamental human right. Sport is well recognised internationally as a low-cost and high-impact tool for development and a powerful agent for social change. It is a culturally accepted activity that brings people together and unites families, communities and nations. 

Effective sport-for-development programs combine sport and play with other non-sport outcomes to achieve the desired development objectives. The focus is not on mass participation or performance in elite sport. This requires a purposeful, professional and socially responsible intervention that is tailored to the social and cultural context. Sport is under-utilised as a development tool and should be an integral component of any comprehensive development program.

Ban Ki-Moon, UN Setary-General

"Sport has become a world language, a common denominator that breaks down all the walls, all the barriers. It is a worldwide industry whose practices can have widespread impact. Most of all, it is a powerful tool for progress and for development."

Thomas Bach, IOC President 

"The UN and the IOC know how much sport can do to address the vast array of human and social needs in the areas of; health, education, inclusion, sustainable development ad peace ... Yes sport can change the world, but it cannot change the world alone. When placing sport at the service of humankind, we need and we want partnerships with other players in society." 

Wilfried Lemke, Special Adviser to the UN Secretary General on Sport for Development and Peace

"Sport builds bridges between individuals and across communities, providing a fertile ground for sowing the seeds of development and peace."

Nelson Mandela

"Sport has the power to change the world. It has the power to inspire. It has the power to unite in a way that little else does. It speaks to youth in a language they understand. Sport can create hope where once there was only despair."

The Sports Ethic | Psychology Today: 

psychologytoday.com

Even the most talented, successful Olympic athlete is likely to have a short career. Mainly for physical reasons many are "finished" in their early 30s, though some sports are a little more forgiving. Years and years of amazingly dedicated practice and you are left without a career and probably with a number of semi-serious injuries.

So what is their fate? There are some attractive options: become a national coach, turn to media commentary, start your own brand. But other career paths, like becoming a sports teacher or working in a sports shop seems rather a come-down after all that effort and glory.

Some ex-sports stars have tumbled into a newish and very well paid wheeze: motivational speaking. Go to the website of those who offer a range of celebrity speakers and you find among the politicians, academics and business people a long list of former athletes. Some, perhaps many, you have never heard of; masters of a sport you are even less sure about.

But most business people will have heard a famous(ish) sports person speak at a conference. They may be round-the-world sailors, sprinters, boxers, or rowers. It's a nice little side gig if you are any good and get asked frequently. Many are, alas, not cut out for the role, which demands a certain flair and style that is not required on the field, court or pool.

The athlete's story can be very dull, quite often. It is all about spending years doing the same thing day-after-day, for months on end, working towards an event that lasts less than 30 minutes, four years hence. Often the audience is invited to try to work out, in their break-out rooms, how all this is remotely relevant for them at work. The better speakers do it for you. They have usually worked out that the work ethic and the sports ethic share a great deal.

Some of the sportsmanship values seem particularly relevant today: adhering to the rules, accepting the official's decision. Outwardly upholding the regulations of the governing sport. It is about all those good things such as integrity, reliability, honesty.  Being candid, sincere, forthright;  Being utterly trustworthy, and having the courage to live by principles.

Rule number one: no cheating (i.e. drugs), no knifing opponents in word and deed. No put-downs, insults, or ridiculing others. Be totally honest and respectful. Accept personal responsibility and understand the legal and moral obligations.

There are many other values that are part of the sports ethic and music to the ears of many employers:

Competition: All understand that competition is good; it drives up standards/records and is the only way to produce the best in their area. It is about fair play and justice, but also about standing out as the "best in class."

Universalism: Sport is open to all, irrespective of: age, class, creed, or sex. It does of course have a lot to do with shape. But the message is clear: you are judged entirely and exclusively on the quality of your performance. All that counts is sporting prowess. So opponents have to be treated to courtesy, dignity, and tolerance. Nepotism and favoritism are no-nos.

Diligence: Nothing is achieved or achievable at international standards without very hard work, fortitude, and perseverance. You can only succeed if you make personal sacrifices, take part in long, strenuous preparation and have stamina for the journey. You have to pursue excellence relentlessly.

Success: This is everything; coming second is not good enough. You play to win, to get the accolades and prizes that come with being first. This is the opposite of the "all shall have prizes" philosophy. No, not everybody is creative, or intelligent, or gifted "in their own special way." Success is for the few who have the right mix of ability and effort.

Self-Discipline: You have to lead a life of ascetic self-discipline and self-control. All your habits need to be healthy. It is about resisting temptation for long periods of time. Sacrificing many pleasures of the flesh for your goal.

Magnanimity: Learning to be gracious in defeat and able to openly admire those better than yourself. Hubris is a sin; humility a virtue. Though you might not believe it, you have to talk about how lucky you were, not how deserving.

There are some values of great importance that do not apply to all sports. Perhaps the most important is teamwork. This is about co-operation, trust, and support. It is about being totally loyal to your colleagues and as concerned for their welfare as your own. It is about learning how to be neither dependent nor independent, but interdependent.

The sports ethic is very much like the work ethic. It is where hard-work and dedication and winning are most important. It is no surprise then that some interviewers consider success in sports as a good indicator of how a person will perform in the work place. There may not be a lot of evidence in favor of this idea, but it seems eminently reasonable. Until, of course, one reads about all the illicit practices, particularly drug use, that goes on in those desperate attempts to win.

Download the Twitter app

Sent from my iPhone

Validating your opinion about the Giants - McCovey Chronicles

I'm with you on the theme of the article and then some. And I'd like to be with the optimists, really I would. They are a more fun bunch of folks to be around, generally speaking. But gosh darn it, I've got to be a realist, and the realist in me says "Inconsistent teams not only don't win in the playoffs, they often have the darnedest of times just making the playoffs". It just seems like the Giants have perfected the art recently.

So the tie breaker is inconsistency. Therefore, I come down more on the pessimist side than the optimist side. But, nothing a decent road trip wouldn't cure. Or sweeping the Dodgers again,

from McCovey Chronicles:

Validating your opinion about the Giants - McCovey Chronicles:

For optimists: 

The Giants have the third best road record in the majors You know what road records are correlated with? Playoff success. And if the universally beloved new Five Thirty Eight doesn't convince you, then maybe this will: Anyone can win at home. It takes  a special team to win on the road. These Giants have proven themselves to be that special team.

For pessimists:

The Giants are awful at home

You know who can't win at home? Bad teams. There are six teams in the majors right now with worse home winning percentages than the Giants, and not one of them is within three games of .500. That's the company the Giants are keeping, and sooner or later, a team that can't win at home – and we're into AT&T Park Was Built On Top Of An Indian Burial Ground territory here – will collapse.

'via Blog this'

P.S. - The conspiracist in me says the Cardinals are cheating and have hacked the Giants training computers and messed up everyones training protocol to induce pulled hammys and concussions in key Giants personnel.

Damn Cardinals, what the hell were they thinking anyway?

Are We Creating a Culture of Moral Misfits?

Trying to make sense out of the senseless atrocity in Newtown, CT seems so futile at times. But this is the operative question that seems to come out of all events like this one or some derivative thereof:
"Are we creating a culture or moral misfits?"



from godfatherpolitics.com
Are We Creating a Culture of Moral Misfits?:

Our nation has a deep moral problem brought on by a belligerent secular worldview. And it’s not just religious people who have seen its impact. Yale Law Professor Arthur Allen Leff (1935–1981) put it this way:

“We are never going to get anywhere (assuming for the moment that there is somewhere to get) in ethical or legal theory unless we finally face the fact that, in the Psalmist’s words, there is no one like unto the Lord. . . . The so-called death of God turns out not to have been His funeral; it also seems to have affected the total elimination of any coherent, or even more-than-momentarily convincing, ethical or legal system dependent upon final authoritative, extrasystemic premises.”

 Put more simply, with God out of the picture, “everything is up for grabs.”[1]

'via Blog this'



This is the best response I could find and it flows out of the lessons we did not learn from Columbine and the testimony of the father of Rachel Scott, one of the students killed at Columbine.

Darrel Scott's speech to Congress:
http://www.americaspartynews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=3621

On that day, many students and teachers and administrators found themselves in gross violation of the Law of the Land handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1962 -- one of many atrocities committed by this body -- and that is to remove prayer from the public schools.

I guarantee you on that day in 1999 at Columbine there were many who violated the law and asked for God's help openly and vainly. And I guarantee there were many in Newtown, CT who prayed in vain for help to a God they do not know very well and would not recognize if they met Him. They may as well have been praying to Santa or the Easter Bunny.

We have done of great job of bringing about The Naked Public Square (1984) that then-Lutheran pastor Richard John Niehaus warned us about (Niehaus subsequently became a Catholic priest in 1991).

(as an aside Niehaus was also on the correct side of the abortion (right to life) issue as well, standing in direct contrast to Chicago Cardinal (Chicago Values Suck) Bernadin when he compared the pro-life struggle to the civil rights movement of the 60's.)

It was a mistake to isolate abortion "from other issues of the sacredness of life" and to allow politicians to hide behind the skirt of the "seamless garment" argument provided to Catholic politicians by Bernadin. 

According to writer Joseph Sobran, "the seamless garment has turned out to be nothing but a loophole for hypocritical Catholic politicians. If anything", he adds, "it has actually made it easier for them than for non-Catholics to give their effective support to legalized abortion—that is, it has allowed them to be inconsistent and unprincipled about the very issues that Cardinal Bernardin said demand consistency and principle".^[11][12]

Regarding the Church's position on the death penalty, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) wrote in 2004 that Catholics could have a legitimate diversity of opinions on the matter, but not on abortion or euthanasia.^[13]) 

from wikipedia.org:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Allen_Leff

Arthur Allen Leff (1935–1981) was a professor of law at Yale Law School who is best known for a series of articles examining whether there is such a thing as a normative law or morality. Leff answers this question in the negative and follows the consequences to their logical conclusions.

In these works Leff attempts to directly address whether a normative morality can exist without God. [2] Leff answers the question in the negative. Leff states that absent an ultimate authority figure (i.e. God) handing down moral laws from on-high there is no reason for any person to prefer one set of behavior identified as "moral" to another. Leff terms this "the Grand Sez Who." In particular, it is impossible to resolve the conflict between the rights of the individual and the power of the collective, even though much of the time we can pretend that, for instance, the Constitution tells us where to draw the line. There are bound to be cases where we are left on our own, with no authoritative referee; there is no "brooding omnipresence in the sky", in the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., whom Leff quotes approvingly.

 Leff was an agnostic but his writings have been influential on Christian discussions of morality in the modern Era. Phillip E. Johnson has suggested that Leff's work is really a critique of the God is dead argument. [3] Johnson argues that the presence of evil in the world is evidence that there is an absolute morality which requires an absolute authority. Other Christian scholars have also applied Leff's critique to secular arguments for a normative morality. [4]

Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural Law, 1979 Duke L.J. 1229 (1979)
http://inklingz.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/unspeakable-ethics-unnatural-law-duke-law-journal3.pdf

Leff states as follows in the closing of UE, UL:

All I can say is this: it looks as if we are all we have. Given what we know about ourselves, and each other, this is an extraordinarily unappetizing prospect; looking around the world, it appears that if all men are brothers, the ruling model is Cain and Abel. Neither reason, nor love, nor even terror, seems to have worked to make us “good,” and worse than that, there is no reason why any thing should. Only if ethics were something unspeakable by us could law be unnatural, and therefore unchallengeable. As things stand now, everything is up for grabs. Nevertheless:

Napalming babies is bad.

Starving the poor is wicked.

Buying and selling each other is depraved.

Those who stood up and died resisting Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Idi Amin, and Pol Pot —and General Custer too— have earned salvation.

Those who acquiesced deserve to be damned.

There is in the world such a thing as evil.

[All together now:] Sez who?

God help us.

.

Basically, there seems to be two types of responses around the water cooler to events like this. There are those who respond "I don't understand how this type of thing could happen..." and those who respond "I not only understand why it happens, I'm only glad it doesn't happen more...". On one side are the secular progressives who worship at the shrine of moral relativism. On the other side are the evangelical conservatives and the religious understand moral absolutism even if they don't practice it to perfection in their own lives.

When we live in a country whose laws (morality) do not respect life much at the beginning or late stages, why do we even question why nobody has much respect for the lives (the ultimate human right -- life) of others during the middle or so-called productive stages?

I won't even discuss some of the immoral institutions (most reside in or are glorified by HOLLYWOOD) that totally disrespect the lives and dignity of human beings in the middle stages of life. So we do pretty much of a good job of shitting on the lives and dignity of life throughout all of its stages.

And then we wonder why incidents like Newtown and Columbine are prevalent in our society, in our culture? And we consistently point fingers in all the wrong directions. We are very well practiced at doing the wrong thing and instead of admitting our mistake and changing course -- we just continue down the same lost course, only faster and harder. The Lost Pilot Effect. (“Lost pilot” effect: If the correct strategy is not known or applicable, people will just do “more” of the wrong thing.)

for a more secular explanation of why we are where we are (LOST):
http://teaching.p-design.ch/mdm07/presentations/managerial_decision_making07_13_Retrospection.pdf

C'mon man. We can do better than this. We're smarter than this.

Unfortunately, for now my response to the question "Are we creating a culture of moral misfits?" is an unqualified "Yes!!"

We have become Amoral Nation. That slippery slope is a real SOB!

Sportsmanship: Pre-Game Handshakes

IF YOU DON'T SUPPORT ACTS OF SPORTSMANSHIP, YOU PROBABLY LACK THE OTHER TWO QUALITIES LISTED - ETHICS AND INTEGRITY


Are you kidding me? We can't get together as leaders (coaches and officials) of young people and implement something as simple as a handshake? The mandate is supposed to be to build up these student-athletes in areas that transcend their athletic gifts.

Here we see where the competing interests fail once again to see the big picture. The fact that several NCAA teams declined to participate says all you need to know about the coaches involved and my hope is they get killed on the recruiting trail as a result. This "football game as war mentality" is one of the most foolish relics of the era of "old-school" coach mentality that is out there.

The fact that the University of Connecticut and West Virginia will get together, on their own volition--to remember and respect a fallen teammate and opponent--should give the knuckle-dragging cretins who oppose this "intrusion" into their pre-game motivation strategy all the perspective they need.

Sadly, most of them will still not get it.

THE COACHES DEBATE: (from the athleticmanagement.com story linked below)

To Shake or Not to Shake?
Some teams decided to answer Teaff's question and find out what happens when teams don't start the game by wringing hands. In one of the weekend's marquee games, Oklahoma State University decided against shaking hands with University of Georgia players.

"Our first concern was (we'll) have 115 guys out there and they'll have 70, it just takes one guy to pop off," OSU Head Coach Mike Gundy told The Oklahoman. "Then I don't know how you're going to break it up. How do you control something like that?"
But many teams participated in the sportsmanship initiative without incident.
"It's just another gesture to send a message that football is not a gentle sport by any measure but gentlemen can play it," Marshall University Head Coach Mark Snyder told The Herald-Dispatch
•••
Coaches React
At Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland, every game is followed by a handshake, an act that is not likely to change because a college football player several states away punched an opponent. Montgomery County coaches view the incident as isolated and have seen much worse. In 2007, a James Hubert Blake High School player in street clothes carried a knife into the handshake line and cut three opposing players' hands.

"Ever since then, we've been able to use it as a teaching tool," Tony Nazzaro, Head Coach at James Hubert Blake, told The Gazette. "In that case, the person gave no indications beforehand of what he was going to do. But I've had kids who should be held out of the handshake because their emotions are still running too high ... Those type of incidents are few and far between, so we shouldn't let a couple of bad incidents ruin what is still a positive experience 99 percent of the time."
•••

MORE FROM THE NCAA AND THE AFCA:

http://www.athleticmanagement.com/2009/10/01/handshake_headlines/index.php

Handshakes and Fisticuffs
By Kyle Garratt

When the NCAA and the American Football Coaches Association (AFCA) named the first round of college football games "Respect Weekend" and encouraged teams to shake hands before each game in a show of sportsmanship, they probably didn't envision what would actually follow. The first game of the college season ended with a player punching one of his opponents, several teams declined to shake hands, and many were not shy to voice opinions for and against the pregame formalities. As it turns out, would-be friendly handshakes can turn quite volatile.
•••
Shakes Turn to Swings
Perhaps it was bad luck that the first game, and first pregame handshake, of the 2009 season packed more emotion than a typical non-conference contest. The University of Oregon was attempting to avenge a loss to Boise State University in which the Broncos knocked the Oregon quarterback out of the game. Senior running back LeGarrette Blount created bulletin board material before the game and a fiasco after. Blount used colorful language to imply his team owed Boise State revenge, rushed eight times for negative-five yards in the game, punched Boise State defensive end Byron Hout in the face before attempting to start fights with teammates and Boise fans, and was suspended from the team.

AFCA Executive Director Grant Teaff did not blame the handshake for the ugly events after the game.
"I thought to myself, 'What would have happened if they hadn't shaken hands before the game?'" Teaff told ESPN. "This wasn't a fight. This wasn't a brawl. I was impressed by the coaches and players who showed restraint and self-control last night."
•••

-----

THE REPORT CARD

From Indystar.com 9/9/09

The NCAA and the American Football Coaches Association kicked off the 2009 season with a “Respect Weekend” in which all teams were encouraged to hold a pregame handshake ceremony to promote sportsmanship.

How did it go?

How did it go?

First, the players. With players cranked up before the opening games of the season, the concern was that one player saying something could mutate the handshake line into a riot. Didn’t happen. Not one pregame incident anywhere. A

Second, the spectators. On talk shows and sports blogs around the country, the majority of fans were fervently against pregame handshakes. When teams met in the middle of the field across the country, would they be drowned out by a chorus of boos? Didn’t happen. On TV screens across the country, stadium crowds spontaneously stood and cheered. A

Third, the coaches. With so many coaches growling at the formality, the concern was that colleges would refuse to do it. Didn’t happen. Other than Oklahoma State and Illinois, the vast majority of schools complied graciously.
For every Joe Paterno (Penn State) saying he didn’t need handshake ceremonies to instill sportsmanship, there was a Jim Tressell (Ohio State) saying the opportunity to shake hands with Midshipmen of the U.S. Naval Academy “was something our kids will probably never forget.” B

Fourth, the aftermath. The NCAA and AFCA hoped the pregame gesture would reduce bad sportsmanship and carry over the camaraderie to the postgame atmosphere. Didn’t happen. After the Boise State-Oregon game, victorious Boise State players taunted Oregon running back LeGarrette Blount for making comments about them earlier. Blount retaliated with a sucker punch, for which he was suspended for the entire season. C-

--------

THE OFFICIALS POINT OF VIEW:

http://www.boston.com/sports/schools/football/articles/2008/12/12/referees_lose_on_handshake_rule_in_court/

Referees lose on handshake rule in court
By Dave Nordman
Worcester Telegram &Amp; Gazette / December 12, 2008

Official Protest
The football field hasn't been the only home for recent handshake debate. In October 2008, the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association (MIAA) adopted a rule requiring basketball officials to stay on the court during the postgame handshake. The Massachusetts State Basketball Officials Association (MSBOA) objected to the rule on grounds that it put officials in danger of fans or coaches who were upset by calls during the game.

"Anyone who picks up a newspaper knows that we're living in a violent society," Alan Goldberger, lawyer for the International Association of Approved Basketball Officials, told The Boston Globe. "The rule is so absurd as to border on delusional."
The MSBOA filed a temporary injunction with the Worcester Superior Court, and the MIAA fired back.

"There is no merit to their case," MIAA lawyer James Long told the court. "We haven't had any problems. It's history vs. speculation."
Ultimately, the court ruled the officials must stay on the court until the handshaking is done.

As a high-school official in basketball, baseball and softball I can tell you I have always found the officials position of turning tail and retreating into the locker room after a contest to be one of the most chicken-hearted (I cleaned that one up) pieces of advice given to us at various clinics and from officials associations.

If you are afraid of abuse from fans you probably did not do a good enough job on the floor. The school is still required to provide for your protection even if you are required to stay longer to observe the post-game handshake. It is simply an extension of your job from the moment you hit the floor, which is to enforce sportsmanship and fair play from the get go. To duck and run after the final horn reflects a lack of seriousness and sincerity to that #1 priority of your job. What a poor image to reflect to fans, players and coaches.

I have stayed after games to watch friends work a higher level game and have never had a problem with fans, players or coaches, in fact quite the opposite. You can sometimes have an opportunity to explain rules or calls after the game in a less pressurized environment and help educate those that have never been there, done that.

At issue was a ruling by the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association that referees, part of the Massachusetts State Basketball Officials Association, not leave the court until teams have exchanged the traditional handshake. In the past, the referees left the court immediately after they signed the score book.

After hearing arguments in a courtroom filled with referees, high school administrators, and MIAA officials, Judge Christine M. Roach ruled against the MSBOA. During the two-hour hearing, the group argued that the rule might cause physical harm, expose them to added liability, and interfere with their contractual relations.

The MIAA countered by saying there has never been an incident in which an official has been assaulted during a post game handshake.

From personal experience, I agree with the MIAA here, in fact the only incident I have had was with a parent, well after the game, outside the gymnasium. I don't see much risk in taking part in a school sanctioned, high-school association approved act of sportsmanship. And the officials association should have backed it to the hilt. So shame on us as well.