AudreSpring341
Watching a football match between two promising juniors, one an Australian and another a Brand New Zealander, earlier this season, I observed a really interesting episode.
At matchpoint down in the 2nd set, the Australian person clearly failed in an make an effort to run down a volley from his opposition. Scooping the ball (which had obviously bounced twice) over his opponent's head, the Australian player continued to take care of the purpose as though it were still "live."
Meanwhile, the New Zealander, sure that the match was over, headed towards the internet to shake his opponent's hand.
With the exception of the umpire, everybody else who was simply there, such as the Australian person, realized that the ball had bounced twice. Despite a protest and an to his opponent's honesty, the New Zealander "lost" the purpose, came quite close to "losing" the set, and, I'm sure, would have found it extremely difficult to win the match had it gone to a third set.
Had that been the case, had the match was won by the Australian, wouldn't it have been a of dishonesty, not loyalty, being the best policy? In the end, when it concerns activity, isn't it a case of winning being every thing, even though it requires cheating?
And even if it's not a case of either dishonesty being the best policy or of winning being everything, how will you show a new player who has just lost as a result of his opponent's dishonesty that loyalty is the best policy, and that winning, if it involves cheating, (or even if it does not), ISN'T everything.
Even though the others might argue, it is my contention that any make an effort to get through cheating routinely brands the cheat as the loser -- no real matter what the end result.
Besides the undeniable fact that any honest viewer can't help but lose all respect for a cheat, even more substantially, a cheat can't help but lose all respect for himself.
Regardless of how hard he tries, he can't avoid the negative effects of his dishonest actions. He can not evade the fact that he's used deceit to gain some thing (a counterfeit win) that otherwise wouldn't have already been his.
By doing this, he must deal with the self-knowledge -- in addition to the information of any viewer -- that he has defaulted on the concept of honesty, and alternatively, develop into a cheat. They can never feel happy, in the true sense of the word, about his alleged win.
Therefore, I would explain to any young tennis player who has just lost to a, and who, as a result, mistakenly believes that cheats do succeed, that nothing could be further from the reality.
And to make my point, I would then ask him if he'd like to trade places, if only for another, with anyone who has a reputation as a, or if he'd feel great about winning through cheating.
Discussing sports integrity with kiddies is extremely important for 2 reasons:
The very first is that activity provides them with one of the most effective opportunities to create the ethical axioms which they could then apply in every stages and spheres of later life.
The second is that sports secrets give the love of healthy competition a negative name, and must, for that reason, be roundly condemned. principles
