Read the debate intro and Loyal Homer’s argument that the disgraced reputation of an unethical former athlete should have no influence on whether or not that person should be allowed to coach.
“I’m not upset that you lied to me, I’m upset that from now on I can’t trust you.” – Friedrich Nietzsche
Nietzsche’s sentiment is what is at the heart of an issue when an athlete is disgraced. All of the apologies, the acts of contrition, and the promises of “it will never happen again” can never truly repair the damage done. A damaged reputation is the hardest thing to repair, and being branded as a cheater or a liar are two of the most damaging things that happen to a reputation.
Once a Cheater – ALWAYS a Cheater!
If a person gains the reputation of taking any means necessary as a player to gain an edge – regardless of whether or not they have to break or bend rules to get that edge – why would you assume the approach to coaching would be any different? If the topic is casino gambling instead of sports, and someone got caught cheating at the Black Jack tables, would you recommend that the casino hire them on as a Pit Boss? ABSOLUTELY NOT!
In the context of casino gambling, the cheater demonstrated a lack of regard for the rules that govern play. They took measures to stack the odds in their favor and gain an unfair advantage with little to no regard for how their cheating may affect fellow gamblers. If the casino were to then put the cheater in a position to not only control their own performance but monitor the performance of others, it would be safe to assume that the cheater would continue to look for ways to manipulate the system.
What about a person who has been arrested for drinking and driving? Would you recommend they go on to become a driving instructor for 16-year-old kids who are trying to get their license. Would you recommend that a person who was reportedly addicted to prescription medicine should be hired as a pharmacist at a drug store? I would not!
It is not a question of the character or moral integrity of the person who committed the wrong. The person in question could be truly sorry for what they did, and may vow never to do it again. I am not advocating that Mark McGwire, for example, be branded as unemployable and never be permitted to work in the United States. That does not mean, however, that he DESERVES the opportunity to work in Major League Baseball again. He left the game in a cloud of controversy, all in the selfish pursuit of hitting home runs. Until he can be truly cleared of those charges (which he does not deny), it is unwise to put him in a position where he again has the OPPORTUNITY to break the rules in order to obtain unfair advantages over competitors.
Too much doubt leads to too much speculation
Continuing on the example of Mark McGwire, who was recently named the new hitting coach for the St. Louis Cardinals, what do you think will happen if Albert Pujols, while under McGwire’s tutelage, suddenly manages to hit 60 home runs in a single season, when his previous best is only been 49? The public will not be praising McGwire for his impressive coaching style, and they will not be praising his technique. Instead, they will question the methods he used to get his hitter those results. Simply having McGwire’s name associated with the accomplishment, even as a coach, diminishes the credibility of the achievement for Pujols. Whether the accusations are fair or not, Pujols, who is generally regarded as the positive example of good hitting WITHOUT the use of performance enhancers, will suddenly have doubt cast upon him because the public will question the validity of his results.
McGwire’s refusal to address the steroids allegations around him did nothing to help the public perception that he found and used illegal substances to improve his game. At some point in his career he allegedly established a connection with a person who supplied him with banned substances, and then used them to make himself better than he naturally was. Imagine putting a person with his alleged contacts and reputation in charge of not only his own hitting, but the hitting of an entire team. People assume that he does not care about the rules, and he does not care about the potential damage those substances could be doing to his body. They view him as only caring about hitting 10 extra homers by the end of the season. Many feel that his solution to batting problems as a player was to inject banned substances into his body. Is it that much of a stretch to assume that his solution to batting problems as a coach would be exactly the same?! A successful coach is one who teaches and hones skills that are developed from experience by studying proper technique, practice and strategy. Successful coaches do not look for shortcuts and opportunities to break the rules.
It is true that there is no proof or guarantee that a disgraced former athlete would definitely cheat as a coach, but there is also no guarantee that he would stay honest and not cheat. Unfortunately, his reputation indicates that he is likely to cheat if the opportunity presents itself, and so the cautious person must assume that he will cheat again if given the chance. It is better to err on the side of caution, and avoid any chance of controversy or speculation.
