Violence, Cheating, Drugs Have Long History in Sports

LEICESTER, England —  In the good old days of sports--say, last century or even earlier--players were upright and noble, and there were no drugs, violence and gambling, right?

Nonsense, says a scholar of sports history.

This period of “gentlemanly amateurism” never existed, said Wray Vamplew, who heads the International Centre for Sports History and Culture at De Montfort University in Leicester.

“We know the Greeks used virtual magic mushrooms to keep them going,” Vamplew said. “We know gladiators and knights in shining armor used certain drugs to help their wounds heal better.”

In his book “Pay Up and Play the Game,” Vamplew depicts sports violence in 18th and 19th century Britain “that makes Lennox Lewis and Mike Tyson look like wimps.”

In a sport known as cudgeling, “sticks and clubs were used to crack open an opponent’s head,” and victory came only when blood ran an inch deep.

Also popular was a sport called “cut-leg,” in which an opponent’s legs were lashed with a whip. So was kick-shins with “heavy-booted men” kicking each other until one couldn’t walk.

And then there were blood sports involving animals: cockfighting, bull- and badger-baiting, and a game that involved burying a hen up to its neck and decapitating it with a bat.

“Merry England shouldn’t be sentimentalized,” said Vamplew, who spent almost two decades at Flinders University in Adelaide, Australia, before returning to England to set up the sports think tank in 1995.

Vamplew has a doctorate from Edinburgh University in economic history and heads the world’s largest center for sports history, where he directs 20 full- and part-time researchers with graduate students pursuing degrees.

Sports has a long documented history, a rich folklore generated largely by sports writers taking--until about 30 years ago--a mostly nostalgic, cheerleading approach that “ignored wider historical implications,” Vamplew said.

As in other areas, sports history “works to keep myths from taking over,” he said.

One of those myths is that sports and politics shouldn’t be mixed.

“At the one end, picking the team is a political decision,” Vamplew said. King James I of England banned soccer because it got in the way of archery, he said.

There is a long history of athletes and nations trying to influence political decisions through sports.

“Governments subsidized sports for military purposes,” Vamplew said. “In the 19th century, horse racing was subsidized to improve horse-breeding techniques because the army depended on horse power until tanks arrived.”

In one of the most controversial events in Olympic history, British judges in 1908 in London voided a 400-meter race and wiped out an American victory, ruling the winner impeded a British runner. All of the judges were British, the last time the home country had such an advantage, Vamplew said.

“The British officials didn’t like the Americans because they trained,” he said. “That wasn’t seen as gentlemanly.”

Gambling and cheating aren’t new, either.

“Heavy gambling was a status symbol ... a means of conspicuous consumption,” according to Vamplew. “Where you began to get gambling, you got cheating and corruption.

“It’s not the prize money that prompts the cheating, it’s the gambling aspect of sport.”

In 1790, the Prince of Wales--the title now held by the heir to the British throne--was banned for getting his horse to lose a race.

Cricket star William Lambert was barred from Lord’s cricket ground, the sport’s Yankee Stadium, for throwing a match in 1817. Gambling at Lord’s was subsequently banned for 100 years.

The phrase, “It’s not cricket,” came into use about 1870, although “the sport actually has a long history of cheating and sharp practice.”

Another myth: amateur is more virtuous than professional.

“Amateur was originally a middle-class British concept,” Vamplew said. “Gentlemen were amateurs. Professionalism--being paid for playing--is what the working man did.”

Vamplew said sports became an industry 100 years ago, but sports professionalism goes further back with athletic men in 18th century England “given employment as estate workers on account of their cricketing prowess.

“Going into the 20th century, the gentlemen who had time to play disappeared, partly with the death of all the officers in the first World War. Society no longer had the leisure class who could afford to play cricket all summer long.”

Vamplew also disputed that athletes are--or should be--role models and questions sports’ impact on character. He agrees with the late Chicago Cubs manager Leo Durocher that nice guys finish last.

“Personally, I can’t see how people get to the top of sport without trampling on other people and groups,” he said. “What is the aim of sports at the professional level? It’s to beat the opposition, and you don’t do it by being Mr. Nice Guy.”

Vamplew maintains an athlete’s behavior on the field is more important than off-field conduct, particularly for the young.

“The off-field behavior doesn’t produce much effect on young kids because they are too young to understand what drugs, sex and rock ‘n’ roll are all about,” he said. “The on-field behavior is what’s imitated.”