'Do unto others' … but be sure to win; college student finds that his mother's golden rule and the thrill of victory don't always mix

Sporting News, The, June 23, 1997 by David Polmer

College student finds that his mother's golden rule and the thrill of victory don't always mix

Remember life when you were 10 years old? It was simple. Your responsibilities were to obey the rules your mother repeatedly preached--the foremost being, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you"--and if you followed these rules, she would declare you the best child in the world. The rules were basic, and while you may not have grasped them all as quickly as, your mother would have liked, before too long you had managed to conquer not only the easy rules, but even some of the tougher ones (Including looking both ways before crossing the street and keeping your elbows off the dinner table).

The one rule that seemed obvious from the second Mom explained it to me was "do unto others." It was catchy, concise and, most of all, easy to accept. Yet at age 10 I learned that not even professional athletes always adhere to the rule I had considered the easiest of my mother's to follow.

On one of my first days as a ball boy for the ATP tennis tournament in Washington, D.C., I was assigned to work a doubles match involving highly ranked Brad Gilbert. What I witnessed that day permanently changed my perception of Gilbert. After a close line call went against him, Gilbert turned to the linesman, unleashed a profanity-filled tirade, then let loose a wad of spit meant only for him. The instant I witnessed Gilbert's actions, I decided (as only a kid can) that this guy was not only my least favorite tennis player in the world, but an undesirable person altogether.

Ten years later, a similar incident occurred. It involved the same scenario--an official, umpire John Hirschbeck, making a close call that does not go in the player's favor. The player, Roberto Alomar of the Orioles, turns to the umpire and spits in his face. There was, however, one significant difference for me in the Alomar incident--the athlete played for a team I have passionately rooted for my entire life, a team that has not reached postseason play since 1983. Furthermore, I knew that for the Orioles to have a successful postseason, Alomar would be desperately needed. Because of these factors, I tried to rationalize why Alomar should be exempt from my mother's "do unto others" rule and thereby escape banishment from the play-offs because of his actions. And I do have my reasons.

First, Hirschbeck clearly blew the call at a crucial time during a critical seasonending series. Second, he apparently egged on Alomar after the player had begun to walk back to the dugout. And third, Alomar is a fierce competitor whose job entails competing at the highest level possible every night. (Hirschbeck no doubt approaches his work in the same manner.) Not only did my mother refuse to accept any of my theories, she pointed out that most of them could have held true for Brad Gilbert.

So why was my reaction to the two events so different? Why, after 10 years, did I found myself trying to excuse a ballplayer's actions that a decade ago I would have acknowledged instantly as disgraceful for any individual?

Clearly, as long as fans create emotional ties to specific players and teams, there will be some people willing to excuse misconduct involving their favorite players or teams, no matter how offensive their actions may be. When Albert Belle played for the Indians, his insolence usually was tolerated by Cleveland fans; now, it's different Also, society bombards us with the message that winning must be achieved because the pain of losing is too great to handle. Most 10-years-olds have yet to establish emotional ties to specific players or teams When a kid sees his team win or lose, he is affected for maybe half an hour.

Yet, as a boy grows up and becomes better acquainted with the expectations of society and the impact of money in pro sports (particularly as it relates to that great end-all winning), the games he loves lose their purity.

Consider the New York media and Yankees fans who treated 12-year-old Jeff Maier like a king after his interference altered the outcome of Game 1 of the 1996 AL Championship Series. The next day, Maier was given box seats behind the Yankees' dugout, courtesy of the New York Post, and he became the star of every New York early-morning and late night talk show. All this for a kid who, instead of going to school that day, assisted the Yankees in winning a big game. To every die-hard Yankees fan, Maier's actions were heroic; it was the victory that mattered, not how it was achieved. Thus the lesson from society is evident Simply enjoying the game, as you did as a child, isn't enough.

I have become a victim of these twisted rules. As I watch my favorite Pro teams, I realize the fun is not in seeing them compete, but in seeing them win. And when I participate in sports, I find lithe satisfaction in the competition, or the exercise, or the skills I acquire. Winning is the must.

When I reflect on the simple "do unto others" rule my mother instilled, I think of how much easier it was to believe in it back then. When you're 10, the rule, like sports itself, is simple. Now that I have grown, society has taught me--for better or worse--that my mother's rule doesn't mix very well with today's sports world.