I appreciate all the tremendous comments about my Cheating article at ProdigyMaker.com from the various groups and message boards.

It seems clear, judging from a sampling of the comments, that there is a group who believes that cheating is always wrong, and a group who believes that the end is somewhat justified by the means and that reactive cheating can be morally justified. I presaged this divide in the article.

It is a tough question for me as well, both as a coach and as a parent.

I liked the comment with a position attributed to Vic Braden: After one bad call, immediately call out or catch the next ball and stand up to the proactive cheater. Tell him or her that you won’t stand for any dirty tricks and demand a fair match. Try to stand up for yourself and negotiate a truce before the match deteriorates into a “hookfest”.

I also thought another post about changing the score as soon as you get cheated was a clever solution. Every time you are blatantly cheated, you could challenge and change the score. A novel solution to the cheating problem.

I do find it a bit morally rigid to claim, as many posters did, that they could never condone reactive cheating. I think we should be careful to judge families and players who choose that path.  While we never want to instill bad values in our players, we also want them to have a fair contest and to have a legitimate chance to win every match. A determined proactive cheater should not be allowed to tilt the scales of a match.

I suspect that in the microcosm of the junior tennis circuit, some players can compartmentalize their actions without unduly sabotaging their macro ethical values. Stopping an opponent from cheating them doesn’t mean that they are going to grow up to be the next Bernie Madoff. It’s just a situational self-defense decision.

I still come back to a few simple metaphors:

Killing for example, is wrong proactively (i.e. murder), but reactively it could be deemed morally just if one’s life or the life of a family member is in danger. I know that I would never murder someone, but I would kill someone if I felt he or she was threatening my kids’ lives. The law and society treat both the proactive and reactive act differently.
Another relevant metaphoric example is breaking the speed limit on the highway:

That is technically wrong according to the law, but most of us go a little faster than the posted limit. In the same way, it can be argued that reactive cheating is a minor transgression—akin to breaking the speed limit. I don’t think it dooms a player to a dishonest and unethical future life.

Another metaphor that seems apropos is about stealing:

We can all agree that stealing is wrong. However, would we condone stealing in certain situations? Like a parent stealing some food or clothing for his or her impoverished family?

It’s still wrong to steal in this instance, but seems more morally defendable and less indictable as a crime. Stealing some food for starving kids seems less reprehensible than stealing a sports car for a joy ride, for example.

My point is that it’s easy to reflexively say: “Cheating is always wrong and I never condone it”. But that black-and-white position does not consider nuances in certain cases and lumps all cheating in the same category of offense, which I think is a mistake. Some cheating—proactive cheating to be precise—is truly morally bankrupting, but reactive cheating is a less heinous offense, and many families choose to allow their kids to practice that approach when warranted.

It seems that many good and moral players are being “sent to the slaughter” in USTA tournaments where proactive cheating is rampant. Many idealistic kids have their spirits crushed by bad sportsmanship and often give up the game or are at least turned off to competition—they stop playing USTA tournaments. This is a shame for the sport.

While it is one subject to change a score, it is another subject to physically intimidate or threaten a cheater. This was suggested as a solution in a post. It seems to me that while this may seem appealing, it is riskier and less effective than simply taking a call back or changing the score back. As mentioned in the article, physical intimidation is an escalation that is not only dangerous but also a higher order “crime”, and potentially a violation under the law.

I think the reason there is such a powerful response to the article on cheating is that it resonates with so many parents, players, and coaches, and that the problem is very prevalent on the junior circuit. In addition, the issue is very thorny and morally ambiguous because there are strong arguments on both sides. It’s a tough issue to come to a clear conclusion about.

I would like everyone to be less naive about how bad cheating is and how prevalent it is on the junior circuit. One poster implied that cheating is mainly seen in the final rounds of big nationals. While it is very true that there is serious cheating in late stages of big tournaments, it is false to suggest that cheating does not exist in early rounds of nationals or in lower level events.

Cheating is happening at every level and in every round. In fact, sometimes it’s easier to cheat in early rounds because the matches are spread out over dozens of courts or even at different facilities—so umpire supervision can be scarce. Cheaters are emboldened when they are on Court 25 far away from the watchful eyes of the TD and umpires. Furthermore, cheaters will cheat anytime and anywhere, not just at big events.

In addition, one commentator suggested that if your opponent is cheating that he is likely insecure and doesn’t believe he can win. While that is sometimes the reason, it’s a myth that all cheaters are thinking that way. I tried to dispel this myth in the article: Cheaters will just cheat, sometimes to get an edge, sometimes because they are insecure, and sometimes just for the sport of it—they can’t help themselves.

Thanks to everyone for adding their thoughts and opinions. It has been very interesting and educational to hear all points of view!

In my opinion, technology holds the answer to this age old debate. Cameras and computerized line calling can effectively make this debate moot. I look forward to the day when all tournaments can be played on Smart Courts with automatic line calling technology. We will have happier and healthier kids in tennis and they won’t be faced with morally perilous decisions when they enter the arena.

Thanks for sharing and keep adding your thoughts to the posts!

Sincerely
Chris

Learn more about Chris Lewit