[Rooster Crows]

An article appeared in today's NY Post (see below) which caused me to think (yes, its true) about today's professional athlete and his/her ability to handle pressure as compared with prior generations. The quotes which got me thinking were from NASCAR vice president of competition, Robin Pemberton, who said "There's a lot of pressure to perform here [Dayotona]," and "Everybody pushes the limits all the time. . . . All these guys are going to do all they can and take everything right to the edge." Sound familiar?

I immediately thought of steriods in baseball (and every other sport), particularly when reading the reference to the driver whose engine manifold was found to have an "illegal fuel additive". Isn't that what a steriod is to an athlete's body?

I began to wonder whether: (1) today's professional athletes face exponentially greater pressure to perform over prior generations due to increased salaries and/or heightened media focus, (2) they don't or can't handle the pressure as well as prior generations - and if so, why not, or (3) their ways of coping and competing are no different, simply receiving heightened scrutiny.

Since spring training hasn't quite fully revved up yet, and given the recent conjunction of baseball and NASCAR through Henry's deal, I would be interested in any thoughts.

Turn Up the Cheat

PS - Apologies if this is not suitable for a thread - just couldn't get it out of my head.

This post has been edited by Rooster Crows: 17 February 2007 - 02:57 PM

[misstheSox]

Quote

I immediately thought of steriods in baseball (and every other sport), particularly when reading the reference to the driver whose engine manifold was found to have an "illegal fuel additive". Isn't that what a steriod is to an athlete's body?

Interesting question, and astute point (above). I thought precisely the same thing when I heard the report on NPR. Remember when Gatoraide was a performance enhancer?

I degress. To me it seems a very simple risk-reward judgement call for most athletes. Most pro athletes bank on a short career anyway, so why not give up a potential few years at the end of a career for greater heights (read- much more money) at peak performance. This is particularly true in baseball, where contracts are guaranteed, and punishment for drug violations has been weak until recently.

[Doctor X]

. . . and the world is littered with "has" and "never-beens." The urge to avoid becoming that has really drive an athlete in this day and age.

[samuelLsamson]

While maximising their earnings is an element, and it'd be naive not to recognise that, I'm convinced the top professional athletes I have worked with have been much more motivated simply by winning. If you're earning millions, then another million here or there is welcome but not decisive. Getting to the top and staying there, and winning titles/records/pennants/rings is a much more powerful factor in the decision making process I think.

If I'm right then it's not so much about financial pressure as about competitive character. I think where the media factor into this is the extent that the average fan is aware of what goes on. Doing anything it takes to win has always been part of professional sport. Steroids have just been one example of that.

[misstheSox]

Quote

Getting to the top and staying there, and winning titles/records/pennants/rings is a much more powerful factor in the decision making process I think.

If I'm right then it's not so much about financial pressure as about competitive character.

Very good point. Quite a few anecdoteal examples back this up. Curt Schilling postponing retirement apparently has much more to do with competition than money. Tom Brady two years ago took I believe 1.5 million less than he was looking for in order to help the team stay under cap. Surely there are more examples than that. (Anyone?)

[CapeCodsBabyBull]

Quote

Getting to the top and staying there, and winning titles/records/pennants/rings is a much more powerful factor in the decision making process I think.

If I'm right then it's not so much about financial pressure as about competitive character

A good point. I think a balance exists between the two but leans slightly towards money motivation. The two motivations can be to close to seperate sometimes without knowing the pschological makeup of the individual, but it can probably be agreed that when your at the top (winning titles records etc) that is usually the time of your highest earning potential. Everyone won't have the chance and/or ability to be at the top so I think many settle for "get it while I can" scenario, which is probaly the reason why you see players like jeremy giambi doing roids and lesser players, this could also create a performance enhancing domino effect and a third category. Taking them just to compete.

[Doctor G]

Both at NASCAR and in MLB the old adage "if you ain't Cheatin' You're not trying. " is the starting point. I don't think this is motivated by financial considerations as much as competitive paranoia. It is not a coincidence that both games have a lot of their cultural roots in the rural South.

[GabeinTehran]

Cheating has existed in sports as long as there have been sports, only the methods have changed. Any time you create an environment of ultimate competition there will be people who will bend the rules in order to win. That's why it's vital that every measure be taken to ensure the integrity of the game in any sport; the olympic governing bodies are a great example of this.

The pressure is not greater today than it was many years ago, at least not for athletes that have reached the pro level. Today, superstars and below-average players all make a lot of money. In the past, success in sports might have meant the difference between feeding your family comfortably or hanging out at the docks every day hoping to be picked.

Another point, I think the NFL/NBA do a much better job of analyzing a players psyche in the draft than baseball does. Part of this is due to the fact that there is a lot more player development in baseball but with the top players being moved along to the majors much more quickly today it may become a larger consideration in the future.

[tmorgan]

GabeinTehran, on Feb 18 2007, 11:12 PM, said:

The pressure is not greater today than it was many years ago, at least not for athletes that have reached the pro level. Today, superstars and below-average players all make a lot of money. In the past, success in sports might have meant the difference between feeding your family comfortably or hanging out at the docks every day hoping to be picked.

This actually makes me think about a couple of major socio-economic debates currently going on. The first would be the current cultural environment of 'winner take all' that a lot of attention is getting paid to. The idea is that the reason for these skyrocketing salaries in executives and entertainers is that they are the absolute best. Now there is no doubt that there is a measurable premium paid for Manny, A-Rod, Dice-K and so on, but the question of is it worth it has come up a number of time. Mostly about Manny. I would pose the question of how salaries have changed since the 00-01 boom years. I guess the way to do this would be to calculate a some kind of Gini coefficient for arbitration eligible players. Basically some way to ask how much more that elite player is getting paid above a league average one. Hmm maybe a better way to put this would be to ask how much each ascending level from amatuer to minor leaguer to major league player to above average player to all star to elite (or something like that, since that is pretty simplifying) is worth.

The other is the motivational factor that is obviously related, but somewhat different. I don't think that most players are purely motivated by money or status so there are other factors in the PED or cheating decision. I think about Bonds and how he reportedly turned to steroids after becoming jealous of Mcgwire and Sosa's attention.

Finally an interesting point is about concentration of players within the population, which comes from Zimbalist. He credits a lot of the records being broken to more a higher dilution of players. If this means that it is more possible to become a professional does that mean that it becomes more accessable and possible on skill for prospects? I don't really know.

As far as the Nascar thing goes: from Jack Roush's interview on D&C it sounded like the incentive there is that winning the Daytona 500 is a financial windfall like making the playoffs for a sports team. So that has a different set of pressures, and the pressure is on the team as a whole. Perhaps that is more like the NFL in the '70s type of situation with cheating being a team based phenomenon.

[GabeinTehran]

tmorgan, on Feb 19 2007, 12:06 AM, said:

This actually makes me think about a couple of major socio-economic debates currently going on. The first would be the current cultural environment of 'winner take all' that a lot of attention is getting paid to. The idea is that the reason for these skyrocketing salaries in executives and entertainers is that they are the absolute best.

The salaries are skyrocketing primarily for two reasons:

- The pie is bigger. Baseball is flush with money, revenue sharing has given small market teams the ability to offer big contracts and everyone can now seriously look at signing (almost) any player.

- Players are better represented. Agents like Scott Boras make sure that players continue to receive better than their fair share of the revenues in baseball. This starts at the top and trickles down. Because Superstars can get 20 million, "good" players are worth 10 million.

Entertainers and executives aren't getting paid more because they are necessarily more talented. The 1945 Yankees would not have paid A-rod 20 million a year to play baseball. It's just the natural business of sports.

[Wade Boggs Hair]

GabeinTehran, on Feb 18 2007, 11:12 PM, said:

Cheating has existed in sports as long as there have been sports, only the methods have changed. Any time you create an environment of ultimate competition there will be people who will bend the rules in order to win. That's why it's vital that every measure be taken to ensure the integrity of the game in any sport; the olympic governing bodies are a great example of this.

The pressure is not greater today than it was many years ago, at least not for athletes that have reached the pro level. Today, superstars and below-average players all make a lot of money. In the past, success in sports might have meant the difference between feeding your family comfortably or hanging out at the docks every day hoping to be picked.

Another point, I think the NFL/NBA do a much better job of analyzing a players psyche in the draft than baseball does. Part of this is due to the fact that there is a lot more player development in baseball but with the top players being moved along to the majors much more quickly today it may become a larger consideration in the future.

These arguments contradict each other. You're saying that the drive to cheat and bend the rules inheres in any form of competitive sport and simultaneously arguing that certain players have that drive more than others, that it pertains to psyche, and that different leagues have different levels of adeptness at addressing this "problem?"

I go with the former - that the drive to bend the rules for a competitive advantage inheres in competition - and I would go further to say that it inheres in business, romance and any other situation in which some are rewarded more than others depending on certain types of performance. I don't see a difference between attaining a competitive advantage in sport and a differential advantage in business.

Any time that a reward (be it money, power, fame, etc.) is tied to a zero-sum competition between entities and not everyone can win, entities will do what it takes to get an advantage in attaining that reward. This should not be shocking at all, and in fact I think we'd claim that anyone not trying to get the reward is indifferent or not "dirty shorts" enough.

If anything, I think the increased visibility of sports and business achievers simply changes the rules of the game, rather than the incentive to bend the rules. By increasing the chances that someone gets caught, it just alters the way in which the players attempt to gain an advantage.

As you say, I think the solution is just to ensure competitive equity given a certain point of differentiation between "smart play" and "cheating." I don't see how any system that rewards advantage can eliminate the incentive to bend the rules.

The Harvard Business Journal published a very interesting and on point article on this a while ago (PM me if you want the link, or I'll find and post it later), in which the article's author compared business ethics to a game of poker, in that the game rewards deception (hiding your hand and bluffing) but condemns other forms of inequity, like collusion or stealing chips. The interesting point there is that there is no real moral component to the game, but rather its ethics are constructed.

Maybe that means the ethics of sports and business just have nothing to do with traditional, normative and religious notions of morality and ethical responsibility?

[misstheSox]

Great discussion here my friends!

Quote

If anything, I think the increased visibility of sports and business achievers simply changes the rules of the game, rather than the incentive to bend the rules. By increasing the chances that someone gets caught, it just alters the way in which the players attempt to gain an advantage.

The NPR segment that reported the recent NASCAR scandel NASCAR had a commentator that compared the concept of cheating in a NASCAR event to disciplining a child. He said (paraphrased here, as this is from my memory of a program I heard last week), "It's like telling your three-year-old to not touch the cookie. Telling him not to touch it means he'll figure out a way to eat the cookie without touching it."

A most apt analogy I thought, one applicable to almost all competivie sports.