Monday, August 3, 2009

Cheating the Athletes

Sven Wilson sends me the following:

When is it OK to tell lies everyone knows are lies (but for some reason it is socially acceptable to do so)? In sports, we have highly educated university presidents saying that the reason we shouldn’t have a playoff system in major college football is because it would be disruptive to the academic lives of student athletes. Now everyone knows that the whole concept of a “student-athlete” in a BCS conference (with maybe the rare exception of places like Vanderbilt [who would never be in the playoffs anyway]), is completely outlandish.

For a political example: When the party in charge in a state says “Our redistricting plan is not designed for partisan advantage; instead, it is designed to [fill in bogus reason here].” Everyone redistricts for partisan advantage and everyone knows it, but for some reason, politicians still say these ridiculous things. Why?

Apparently, there are some conditions where it is OK to tell a bald-faced lie without causing a scandal. Are some lies such obvious lies that it is OK to lie? How does one know the difference?


Corry Cropper said...

It's OK to lie when it benefits the power structure. Not OK to lie if you're an athlete...

And fans often like lies. We liked all the home runs in the 90s even though we knew many players were juiced. It would have been a major buzz kill to learn both Sosa and Bonds were juicing while they were breaking the records. Better to learn about it later.

Anonymous said...

A playoff system in major college football