Endorsing Cheating: "Romo" Replay on 60 Minutes

Though it originally aired last year, "60 Minutes" replayed a Scott Pelley interview with defensive standout Bill Romanowski, who played in the NFL for 16 seasons. The lesson of the interview supports several claims that we have studied. One, that America is fascinated with examining a cheat, two, journalists often go right along for the emotional ride, and, three, sports leagues do little to stop the rampant cheating, especially drug use.

Romanowski is known for being one of the dirtiest players in the league, notably spitting in the face of an opponent. Now out of the NFL and with a book to promote, Romanowski, who had exceptional career, admitted taking steroids while playing.

Steroids are in direct violation with the NFL’s drug policy.

Like some theories in David Callahan’s book, The Cheating Culture, Romanowski explains his deviant behavior—which includes an admission of breaking the finger of an opponent—by blaming the competitive milieu of the NFL: "In professional football the competition is so intense. 'Is he good enough? Is he fast enough? Does he hit people hard enough? Does he get hurt a lot?' I didn't want that to happen to me. I didn’t want to lose my job." Romanowski also claims that he didn’t use the illegal substances until the end of his career.

With his conscience in the clear and millions in the bank, the NFL becomes the criminal through a wonderful case of transference. Though it is absurd to suggest that the NFL forced Romanowski to take steroids, the league is guilty of another crime: turning a blind eye. What has league done in the year since the admission? Nothing, which is a de facto endorsement of this illegal behavior, as Bill still wears his Super Bowl rings.

Worse was the cozy, humanizing interview conducted by Scott Pelley, who shows Romanowski watching his son play soccer and crying about being the victim of the high pressure of the NFL. The interview is loaded with compassionate fluff from the man who once broke the eye socket of teammate. He openly admits that he broke the cardinal rule of his profession, acted as a savage on the field, and CBS shows him as the penitent man, ensnared in the pressures of making millions of dollars. And they help him promote his book.

The only question remains if he still be inducted into the Hall of Fame. Seeing how quickly we, as a society, excuse this type of behavior, especially in sports. Romanowski has a good shot. If sports and society continue to endorse this behavior, we can expect more people to follow the Romanowski example to fame and fortune.

Vanessa Kitchen @ September 19, 2006 - 5:03pm

It is a big issue as to whether Romanowski is allowed into the Hall of Fame. With USC's Heisman Trophy in jeapordy because Reggie Bush allegedly recieved money and favors from sports agents, and Pete Rose banned from the Hall of Fame because of betting on baseball, one would assume that steriods would qualify as an instant disqualifier. However, because of the high numbers of althetes coming forward for steriod use, it's become almost commonplace. Because of this, I expect that the NFL might, wrongly, go ahead with his induction.

Michael Luke @ September 19, 2006 - 9:50pm

Sports are overwrought with a winner-takes-all mentality. This is not to be confused with competition or striving for excellence.

But we, the fans, are also to blame, tuning in in greater numbers each week to watch while knowing that significant numbers of our heros are cheating. Most fans are willing to turn the blind eye as well. Ask the droves of fans that want Pete Rose allowed in to Cooperstown.

Conor Friedersdorf @ September 19, 2006 - 10:02pm

Is Pete Rose an example that supports your argument? Sure, MLB found him guilty of gambling, but that's not cheating. It didn't help him secure an unfair advantage over competitors. Nor did any payments Regiie Bush may have received.

When athletes cheat by taking steroids or using corked bats they should be stripped of honors that accrue to winners. But it isn't as clear when they break rules like gambling, taking payments or smoking marijuana.

Michael Luke @ September 20, 2006 - 6:57am

My argument for Rose is how so many are willing to forgive his sin. His sin was akin to insider trading on Wall Street. Rose was gambling illegally.

While he claims to have never bet on the Reds -- the team he coached and influenced -- there is evidence to the contrary. Quoting Wikipedia, "The Dowd Report asserted that Rose bet on 52 Reds games in 1987, at a minimum of $10,000 a day." That's not child's play, yet some want him honored with the game's greats. And I would say betting on your own team is cheating.

I loved watching him play, but the overimportance of sports in our society allows stars to commit criminal acts yet be forgiven.

Conor Friedersdorf @ September 20, 2006 - 7:46pm

Betting on your own team to win could be considered cheating in the world of gambling -- I suppose a manager has information that few others are privy too -- but I don't think it's cheating in the world of baseball because it doesn't give any advantage at all.

I understand why baseball has outlawed the practice. I agree that they should outlaw it. But though it may be unethical I don't think it's cheating.

Recent comments

Navigation

Syndicate

Syndicate content