StarTalk Radio - #ICYMI - Breaking the Rules–The Physics & Psychology of Cheating

Episode Date: April 12, 2018

In case you missed this episode on the Playing with Science channel… You can break the rules of the game, but you can’t break the rules of physics. Chuck Nice and Gary O’Reilly investigate the physics and psychology of cheating, with physicist John Eric Goff and sport psychologist Dr. Leah Lagos. Subscribe to SiriusXM Podcasts+ on Apple Podcasts to listen to new episodes ad-free and a whole week early.

I'm Gary O'Reilly and I'm Chuck Nice and this is Playing With Science. You can play by them, you can bend them or you can just straight up break them. The choice is yours but remember the rules are the rules and the art of playing dirty is most certainly to try and get away with it. Yes. Which, by the way, is easier said than done. And unlocking his box of dirty tricks and exploring the physics with us is the one and only Professor Eric Goff. While sports psychologist Dr. Leah Lagos will explain what is going on in the minds of those who cheat to win. But keep in mind, winners never cheat and cheaters never truly win. And the good guys always finish last.

This is so true. And joining us now by video call to break down the physics is Professor Eric Goth, author of Gold Medal Physics and professor of physics at Lynchburg College in Virginia. Now, before we get to the professor, he's eagerly waiting. Professor of gold medal physics and professor of physics at Lynchburg College in Virginia. Now, before we get to the professor, he is eagerly waiting. I just have to expand upon something that's happened recently. It's happened in the world of cricket, which for some people doesn't bother them because they don't care if cricket exists. Some people absolutely love it, like football or baseball or soccer. The fans are super passionate about that sport.

They are. And in some parts of the world, particularly India, it's almost tantamount to being a religion. It's like a religion. Right. I have to tell you. Yes, please do. I watched my first cricket match. I was watching it and I was like, how the hell could you make baseball more boring?

But somehow they did it. Possibly not the best way to open this section, but let's see what we can do and focus on what happened in australia the australian national team were playing the south african national team and ball tampering chuck's gonna love this ball tampering is what took place one of the players has a piece of sandpaper an emeryery board. No sniggering, please. So in his pocket, and they are trying to create roughness on the ball. This then doesn't stay within the parameters of the world of cricket. The Australian prime minister gets involved.

Then the governing board of Australian cricket banned Steve Smith, the all-time great batsman. David Warner, he gets banned from playing domestic and international cricket. governing board of Australian cricket banned Steve Smith, the all-time great batsman. David Warner, he gets banned from playing domestic and international cricket. Cameron Bancroft, who's a young upcoming star, gets banned for nine months. The coach quits. It is a national scandal. It then becomes a global scandal. And then it's like, wow, what just happened? So, so professor please uh thank you for being patient we in cricket is so full of physics and it can be dependent on the surface of the wicket

it can be the atmospherics and then you can do things with the ball to get reverse swing yes reverse swing and and the ball aerodynamics there's natural scuffing there's shiny side there's all sorts so please professor uh expand upon what is going on with the physics in cricket so let me just talk about the the ball first yeah look at that you've got a cricket ball there It's about the same size as a baseball. The baseball has the 108 double stitches around it. The cricket ball has a diameter of two sets of three seams that go around the ball, and they have about 60 to 80 or so stitches on each one of those seams. So you've got six seams around the equator of the ball,

each one of those seams. So you've got six seams around the equator of the ball, and both sides of the ball tend to be very shiny when the ball is new and very smooth and polished. So the idea of throwing a ball with swing, whenever you throw the ball overhanded in cricket, you're going to have about something close to 90 miles an hour that you can get the ball up to when you're going to have about something close to 90 miles an hour that you can get the ball up to when you're throwing these things really hard, the elite players. And what they'll do is they'll put a spin on the ball to keep the seams along the equator. And just like a bicycle wheel that's turning, there's stability associated with that spin. And what that'll do is it'll keep the ball spinning such that the seams maintain a certain location on the equator of the ball while it's moving through the air. On the smooth side,

the air separates what we call laminarly. It's a smooth separation from the ball, and it doesn't happen back behind the ball very far. On the rough side, where the seam is, you get what's called a turbulent separation of the ball, and the roughness will actually delay the separation of the ball. So normal swing of a cricket ball is to move toward the rough side. You could really enhance this effect by rubbing the ball, really trying to roughen it. You're allowed to spit on the ball, polish the shiny side to keep it really nice and smooth. And then you try to roughen in any way you can one side of the ball to really enhance the movement toward the rough side of the ball. So that's what's called normal swing. Now, the cricket scandal that happened with the test match down in South

Africa with the Australian team, they were looking for something that would provide what's called reverse swing. Now, on a legal cricket ball, reverse swing can really be thrown by elite players because you have to get the speed of the ball up to about 90 miles an hour or so. You have to be able to throw it really hard. When you get the ball moving that fast, you actually get the layers of air on both sides of the ball being turbulent. And the rough side actually thickens that boundary layer and causes it to come off early. So what happens is, is you actually move the opposite direction. You move toward the smoother side of the ball. That's called reverse swing. Now here's what the Australian cricket team was trying to do. A really old or worn ball, one that you can really roughen up on

both sides, can cause that transition, the drag crisis that I know you love, Chuck. Yes. It can cause that to happen at a lower speed. So instead of being an elite player that needs to get this over about 90 miles an hour, you can actually achieve reverse swing by intentionally roughening all the ball, making it very worn up to about 70 miles an hour. So you can drop the speed at which you need to throw the ball for reverse swing. Why would you do that?

Because that in and of itself is a tip off to anyone watching the game, whether they're an official or not, that you're cheating because they know that whenever they see reverse swing, it's on balls thrown like as hard as an elite player can throw it. So why would, I mean, wouldn't that be an immediate tip-off if I see a ball that, I mean, there's a big difference even in baseball. When you see a 70-mile-an-hour ball thrown, which normally your curveball and your balls with movements in baseball are thrown at a lower speed. Agreed. Okay?

in baseball are thrown at a lower speed. Agreed. Okay? So there's a big difference between seeing that and a blazing 93-mile-an-hour fastball go by. They don't even compare when you're looking at the two of them. So why would you do that? Keep in mind that 70-mile-an-hour is about a lower limit on this. So anything over 70 miles an hour,

you're going to be able to get that ball to have the reverse swing if thrown in the right way, as long as you've really worn and roughened the entire ball. So we're talking about maybe somebody who could only go, say, 85, 84 miles an hour, can't quite get it up to that elite speed, can now achieve that reverse swing. And it's like throwing a screwball to the batsman.

Right. Don't forget, Chuck, that probably 99% of all of the, you call them throws, bowls that take place have contact with the ground before they arrive at the batsman and he's wicked. And they're looking even then, Professor, to gain advantage through the physics of contact to spin and rotate from that sort of contact, surely? That's right. So when the ball has the swing, and of course it's going to have typically some backspin on it like so, and when it hits, it can skid off at a certain angle. If it's already moving with a certain swing,

that's going to influence the angle that's going to come off of the pitch. So that absolutely, it can prove devastating to the batsman if the ball is coming in in a direction that the bowler is throwing it, that's going to have that perfect bounce off the pitch and knock it right into the wickets. So there was a similar, and it wasn't as much of a controversy that happened in professional baseball. I think the guy's name was Phil Necro. Joe. Was it Joe Necro?

His younger brother, Joe. Okay, his younger brother, Joe Necro, had an Emory board when he was on the pitching mound. And what he was doing was taking the Emory board and roughing the ball, and then he would throw a ball that had so much movement in it that it looked like a cartoon pitch. Like the ball was literally moving in a corkscrew. When was this?

Oh, God. How long ago was that, Eric? Oh, gosh. I've got to think that was back in the 80s. I mean, I remember when it happened, but it's been 30 years or more. Yeah, it was a long time ago. that was back in the 80s. I remember when it happened, but it's been 30 years or so. The thing is now, we have such ultra

HD cameras. You can do that today. And you have so many more cameras at a game. Everybody's on camera at some point. Oh yeah, and by the way, the close-ups in today's game make it impossible because you ever see the close-ups during the playoffs where the camera goes into the glove. Yeah. Yeah.

The guys, the, the, the, the players holding the pitchers, holding the glove, the ball in the glove. And then they somehow they get a shot from all the way across the field of the, of the pitcher's hand inside the glove. So there's no way that you can do it. I wonder what they're looking for. The video that you saw of the, the cricket player, I think it it was Cameron Bancroft that was the one that was caught. So you have the little yellow piece of the sandpaper that was seen between the fingers. And he was actually seen roughening the side of the ball with that paper.

And then he was also filmed actually trying to put it down in his trousers. Well, at least he wasn't as bad as Joe Necro, who just threw the Emory board in the air when the ump walked up to him. That's right. He literally put his hands up like, what Emory board? And threw it. Baseball infields are littered with Emory boards all the time. Exactly. I mean, we have a term in baseball called juicing. Juicing. Juicing a baseball.

And there were allegations in the last World Series, weren't there, that the balls were juiced? Yes. And there's a lot of things. Is there any way in cricket you can juice the ball outside of what we've just discussed or even the bats for that matter? What do they put in the ball to make it juiced? What do they do? Do they make the core bigger or smaller, Eric? What do they put in the ball to make it juiced?

What do they do? Do they make the core bigger or smaller, Eric? No, I mean, you've got all kinds of, in a baseball, I mean, when you take these things apart, you've got all kinds of winding and you've got a really hard rubber core in there. I mean, if you change the internal structure of the ball, you can change the way it comes off of the bat, the speed at which it's going to come off the bat. It's not, correct me if I'm wrong here, a baseball isn't built to an exact size. It is within certain parameters. It does have a fairly narrow range, though.

I mean, it's not like golf. I mean, baseball, the rule book for a baseball, it's actually fairly rigid. I mean, you have a very narrow range that you can have for the circumference of the ball and for the weight. But we're only talking about like a quarter ounce or so that you can vary the weight of the ball. But would that make any difference were you to increase the weight? Sure. I mean, the ball bat collision is mostly determined by the bat speed. But of course, there's a small component that's associated with the ball speed. speed, but of course there's a small component that's associated with the ball speed. If the pitcher is able to throw the ball faster, you could actually hit it harder or faster, you know,

coming off the bat. If you can actually get your bat swing up, you know, players have tried to do things to doctor their bats. There's very little evidence that shows that, you know, corking their bats is going to help much, but there's also a psychological component too. Oh, that's interesting. The fact that you think you're going to hit the ball better makes you actually hit the ball better. Sure. The psychology of it we will visit very shortly in this show. But first of all, we're going to take a break.

When we come back, we'll be looking at some very famous incidents of people not quite playing. They call it cheating, do they? Cheaters. I would say not playing by the rules. Yes, yes. But then again, that's just me being polite, isn't it? And we're even going to have a clip from my appearance on the show, Cheaters.

That's a joke. Interesting. So we're going to take that break. But when we come back, examples of people not playing fairly and the good professor. So stick around. We'll be back in a jiffy. Welcome back. I'm Gary O'Reilly.

And I'm Chuck Nice. And this is Playing With Science. And today, we'll call it Cheating With Science. Cheating With Science? Cheating With Science, yes. I think Cheating With Science sounds pretty toggle and good. Doesn't it? we'll call it cheating with science cheating with science cheating with science yes i think cheating with science sounds pretty talk on good doesn't it yeah it sounds like not fair at all exactly perfect let's not be playing by the rules let's break them let's mess around with bending them let's just straight up break the rules so the good professor is with us via skype

he must like us yes yeah to put up with us i can't believe it good professor is with us via Skype. He must like us, Chuck. Yes. To put up with us. I can't believe it. He's absolutely putting up with us. Right, where should we go first? I think we'll visit one of Chuck's favourites. What? Deflategate. Oh my, really? Really. Someone cheated during Deflategate? Possibly. Who could that be?

We'll find out. Oh my god. Professor, so... How awful. If a ball were to be deflated, such as a pigskin, what advantage would there be to, say, a quarterback? You know, a quarterback, maybe he's slightly dreamy looking, married to a supermodel, and, I don't know, considered one of the best quarterbacks of all time. I'm not thinking of anybody in particular. I'm just saying, if a quarterback actually deflated a ball, what would he gain? So the deflate game, I mean, that was played in the cold. So sometimes the quarterback is going to have a little trouble, you know, making a good contact with the hand, with the ball. So for those of you who don't have a startalkallaccess.com, you can't see that the good professor is holding up a football.

A deflated football. A deflated football, and he's gripping it. It is deflated. That is right. He's gripping it like a pillow. He's got his own prop store. He's got everything. That's fabulous.

So go ahead. If you have a slight reduction in the pressure of the ball, the idea is that you could grip the ball a little bit better in the winter where the cold might make it just a little bit more slippery. And, you know, that's going to give you a slight advantage whenever you hold the ball. Are you saying that Tom Brady's fingers are too delicate to grip a cold ball? Is that what you just said, Professor Eric Goff? My God, how dare you? Well, I mean, you can certainly break the laws of the game, but you can't break the laws of physics. So, I mean, whenever you're looking at the footballs,

the NFL states that you've got to have 12.5 to 13.5 PSI in the ball. So they actually give you a range. It's not like it has to. You can go down the 12.5 PSI, you a range. It doesn't, it's not like it has to, you can go down the 12 and a half PSI, which is the limit or the floor, that's the floor and you're within the range, right? That's right. And you got to remember that, you know, normal atmospheric pressure is like 14.7 PSI. So, you know, every little square inch on our body, we feel about the weight of a bowling ball from the ball from the air.

And, of course, our cells have evolved to balance that in the other direction. But the football, that gauge pressure is above atmospheric pressure. So you have 12.5 to 13.5 PSI above the normal atmospheric pressure. Whenever you check the ball, say, in a warm locker room, maybe it's 70 degrees or so. If the pressure is legal, you can actually take it outside. And maybe if it's 30 degrees Fahrenheit, the pressure on that ball could drop by as much as one and a half PSI or so. You can actually dip below the legal range. So what happens then, say, for instance, you're playing the Dolphins in Miami instance you're playing the dolphins in miami or you're playing the broncos in denver there's a mile about about a mile difference between the

two in terms of altitude that must then again have a influence so when you reduce the air density that's going to help them throw the ball with less air drag so they can throw the ball a little faster uh when they're in denver compared to miami. Surely deflated football is identifiable because it's not traveling the way that you would naturally expect to see a ball travel. That's right. You're going to have a slight reduction in speed with the deflated ball, but that's going to be really hard to notice if you're only talking about taking one PSI or something out of the ball. So what you just described about the ball being inflated in a 70-degree locker room and then going outside to 30-degree weather.

Is it possible, please God say no, that Tom Brady didn't cheat? That he just inflated a ball to 12.5 PSI and then it went, they took it outside, and the cold weather caused the ball to shrink a little bit. I mean, that happens to your tires on a cold winter morning, like in a day where you get a really big swing in temperature, right? So it's a fall night, right? And it goes down into the 30s, right? You come outside in the morning, and you're like, holy crap, my tire's going flat. But really, it was just the cold weather that deflated your tire a bit.

So one of the questions I got asked on NPR when all this was going on was, you know, do you think the Patriots cheated? And of course, my answer was, I don't know. I don't have any information to know whether at that time they cheated. But keep in mind that each team is supplying the balls. So if you have, you know, the Patriots are using a ball outside and then you've got, you know, the other team is using the ball. I mean, they're using their balls and the Patriots are using theirs. You should be able to tell if the two balls are roughly the same by, you know, grabbing them, throwing them, that kind of thing. I think what got the Patriots in trouble was the balls they were using felt a little different compared to the ones that the, was it

the Colts they were playing in that game that they were using on the other side of the ball or on the other side of the field, I mean. Okay. Okay. okay oh well uh then i'm gonna say yes they cheated all right good i'm glad we cleared that up we've kept glad to help you yeah that's therapeutic professor right let's move on to a subject um that's close to your heart cycling i know you are a massive tour de france fan um and you model every stage of the tour every year. So how do you go about, and there's some very famous cheating or breaking the rules in cycling, but how do you go about in terms as an individual

and then in terms of a team? Because we've seen a lot of rumors just recently with Team Sky, who are a big player in the world of cycling. How do we look at that and some of the things that take place in cycling? Well, of course, I mean, Team Sky is such a powerful team. I mean, that's the one that, you know, has won the last three of the last four, you know, Tours de France. And what I do with my modeling is I have to use actual power input

for measured cyclists and try to get the elite cyclists to determine who's going to win a mountain stage or a flat stage. So when Chris Froome is winning in the, you know, the mountains, let's say for team sky, I mean, he's a, he's a little guy and that's a different power output from say one of the bigger cyclists that are going to win one of the flat stages that are able to sprint really fast at the end. So I've got a way to alter the power. But what we did notice was that whenever we got to 2013, there were some really, really high times or fast speeds, low times in the early part of the first half, I would say, of the race. And there were some very, you know, raised eyebrows at some of the cyclists who were actually finishing stages that Lance Armstrong would have been proud of. And then I think because the questions were being asked, then you go into 2014 and 15

and 16 and the speeds came down a little bit. So, I mean, there's a little bit of self-correcting going on once, you know, the technology is able to watch, you know, how fast these cyclists are going and to track them. And they also have the black sticks on the bike, so they can actually get some power output readings from those sticks to get the biomechanical data supplied by the teams can publish that. Chris Froome published a stage 10 from a couple years ago, and it was right on to what we were modeling. So we weren't too worried about him. But you do occasionally get some pretty high power outputs that cause your eyebrows to raise. So is it true that everybody is on some kind of doping in the World Cup? I mean, Tour de France.

Tour de France. I'm sorry. Not the World Cup. In the Tour de France. Is it true that augmentation is just something that is part of the sport and has been forever? I honestly have no idea. I'd like to think it's competed fairly, but there are years. If everybody's doing it, it's still fair.

I mean, you know. I mean, I've got to think there are some that aren't doing it, but I've got to say I don't know. I don't know what every single cyclist is doing. say I don't know I don't know what every single cyclist is doing um I know we've heard stories about how the the locker rooms are and how some of the younger cyclists feel like they need to do something to you know keep their livelihood going um you know I I kind of hope the sport's gotten cleaner since since Armstrong was caught I think there's a there's a major hope along the lines of what you've just described that it is clean but there were there was pictures of a bike being doped with like a secret engine built into the the upright of a frame and when a when a rider went over the rear wheel just kept spinning oh no oh have i have i had

have i just been watching fake news or did that actually happen? I'm not really sure what was in the bike frame there. I mean, the, the, the rules do put a lower limit on the mass of the bike. So, you know, the cyclists try to improve the technology of the bike so that they can work with us as, you know, small a mass bike as they can so that they're not having to lug too much massive equipment up the Alps. For example, it's a strange one to tour because it's such an emotional ride for, was it three weeks?

Yeah, it's 21 stages. You got two rest days in the middle of those three weeks, just two. So you got 21 stages and, you know, the average calorie burn is equivalent to about 10 big Macs per stage. So that that's a lot of, uh, calories are burning every single day. Yeah. Wow.

Okay. So let's move from France just across the English channel to England and something close to a lot of Englishman's hearts. The hand of God in the world cup in Mexico, in the eighties, Diego Maradona, probably the shortest person on the field wins a ball in the World Cup in Mexico in the 80s, Diego Maradona, probably the shortest person on the field, wins a ball in the air and Argentina score.

Now, TV replay show, you don't have to dust it for fingerprints. It's handball. He just bats it in with his hand. But the referee apparently doesn't see that. Professor, do you remember that incident at all? But where's the cheating there? That's not really cheating. That's a referee who's gotten paid to... Of course it's cheating.

How's that cheating? Because he's hit the ball in the goal with his hand. Every Englishman would tell you, every other nationality would say it's not cheating. Well, every other national man will say it is. It's not cheating if you're not caught, is what they're going to say, right? Look, it's not in the spirit of the game,

and we didn't like it. Oh, I agree. You still have 1966 tattooed on everybody's head, right? Oh, yeah. I mean, to be fair, what comes around goes around. In 66 66 did the ball cross the line we didn't have any goal line technology there's a conspiracy theory about the russian linesman oh there's a there's never a game without a conspiracy theory and gary where was the

66 world cup played oh if memory serves me right london oh yeah so that's a little different from mexico and argentina right however it was diego yes. So that's a little different from Mexico and Argentina, right? However, it was Diego Maradona and he shouldn't have done it and we didn't like it. It certainly looked like a handball. Oh, Eric, that's just so not right. It certainly didn't look like a handball. It was a handball. I know.

I know. Yeah. Well, now we've cleared that up. Exactly. So it's so great because we're going to talk about, you know, what is it that makes a cheater, you know. Yeah, well, now we've cleared that up. Exactly. So it's so great because we're going to talk about, you know, what is it that makes a cheater, you know. But, I mean, for these guys who are professional sports players, I would say that, you know, when you talked about the younger players and the younger cyclists in the Tour de France who feel like, hey, I've got to maintain my livelihood. Hey, pressure. toward the friends who feel like, hey, I've got to maintain my livelihood.

I mean, that's a huge incentive to cheat when you're talking about, look, I'm either on the team or off the team. I'm getting a paycheck. I'm not getting a paycheck. That's a huge incentive. Well, you've got to think some of these, you know, athletes are, you know, 18, 19, 20 years old, maybe coming from poor, poor backgrounds. Uh, if you think about baseball, you know, maybe you're coming out of a, you know, Caribbean Island country or somewhere in Central America, you got a chance to make, you know, more money than maybe your whole village. I mean, you've got a chance to, you know, set up your family and your friends, uh, for, for, you know, two or three generations to come, at least. I mean, I can definitely understand the incentive that people are going to feel like, you know, hey,

I got a chance to, you know, help my family. And then, you know, it's not an ethical decision I'd want to have to face myself. It's a financial decision in the end. But I just look at it and say, of all the examples we've gone through, do you look at it from the point of view of physics and think, yeah, I can see that's worth it? Or do you think the gain from tampering with a ball doesn't seem to be ultimately worth it? You may have a minor success rather than a total success within a game or an event. minor success rather than a total success within a game or an event? Well, I mean, I think the quintessential example is Barry Bonds. And he doesn't have a positive test. There are rumors. There are his trainer, Balco, all these types of innuendo. And just looking at pictures of him from year to year.

I was going to say, I don't think you need a blood test when your head grows to the size of a Mardi Gras character. I agree. You got, you know, Sosa and McGuire captivating the world in 1998. And, you know, Bonds thinks, now, wait a minute. I might want a piece of this. And, you know, three years later, he's going to hit 70. So, or sorry, 73. He's going to break McGuire's record of 70. So that was a case where it was not a financial decision.

It was, you know, I'm tired of being number two or number three. I want to be back to number one again. Wow. Okay. And that leads us nicely into our next guest. But first, we are going to take a break. But before we do, Professor Eric Goff, thank you so much. Always a pleasure. Absolute pleasure. Yeah, thank you. We're going to take that break. And up next, we'll try and understand what happens in the cheater's mind with the help of our good friend, sports psychologist Dr. Lea Lagos. So stick around. We'll be back very, very shortly. Welcome back. I'm Gary O'Reilly. And I'm Chuck Nice.

And this is Still Playing With Science. And we're talking about cheating in sports. Breaking the rules, not bending them, breaking them. And joining us now via Skype is sports psychologist Dr. Lea Lagos. So welcome back, doctor. Good to have you back on the show. Hi. Good to see you both.

Nice to see you, Lea. Yeah, we've been discussing the recent cricket scandal between Australia and ball tampering and South Africa. And it sort of got everybody thinking on the show about the perspective of what goes on in an athlete's mind. The mind of an athlete when you're a cheater. Why go from you spend so much time working hard, training hard, and then you just go, I'm going to risk it all. I just got to do this. And with that, let me ask you from a neurological standpoint,

is there a difference in the brain chemistry between someone who is a serial cheater, I'll call them? Yeah. I mean, this is the person who just, for whatever reason, they got to win. They'll cheat at poker. They'll cheat at golf among friends. They just cheat. That person. And then the person who cheats

because they feel as though they have to. I'm going to get cut from the team, so I got to perform a little better. Or the difference between like a guy being hungry and stealing a loaf of bread and a guy who's just like, I love stealing stuff. Well, you know, it's such an interesting question. And there are so many different pieces of this that I'm excited to tap into today.

But what I see from a physiological perspective, these people that are perpetual cheaters in everything, not just sports, but life, gamemanship, friendship, work, they have difficulty managing their emotions, a physiological imbalance or a heightened arousal level that they can't quell or satiate in any other way. But there is a dopamine response that happens amongst the subset when they do cheat. It's short term, of course, because there's punitive consequences, right? Yeah. If you get caught. So it's the thrill of getting away with it? Is that the reward system in play here?

It can be at certain times. Now, when we talk about a team like the Australian cricket team, the features here are different because this is a team. and cricket team, the features here are different because this is a team. Cricket, the sport of cricket in Australia is such just an esteemed sport, a respected sport. This team was looked at as deities and godlike in terms of what they were capable of on the field, but also they touted this kind of ethical standard. So why on earth would these players be involved in a scandal of cheating? Well, what's interesting about this team is that they had a winning record, which makes it seem even more strange. But when you think about it from a psychological perspective, it doesn't seem so strange because they had more at stake than, let's say, the underdog.

So we see that time and time again, that the teams that are more likely to cheat are actually ones that have had a history of success as opposed to failure. So now is that history of success a result of the fact that they're cheaters? It's possible. That's a fair point. But it's not necessarily a cause and effect. But surely there's a culture around these athletes that must enable them. Because I think back to some coaches and there is no way I am going to be pulling that kind of stroke or anything like that while he's my coach. Imagine Vince Lombardi as your head coach and you thinking, I'll deflate the ball today. The fear of what he would do to you is enough for you to take a step backwards. So it's this the culture around these athletes.

These players must have had some sort of fracture. I'll call it that. some sort of fracture i'll call it that a hundred percent when you have a team with a strong team culture they the team culture can hold one team member or even an isolate behavior accountable such that the deviant behaviors get flushed out and in this instance the coach conceded you in his resignation, there was an aspect of this that he wasn't able to instill in the team, which was a team culture that that was able to uphold the principles of the game. It's interesting. He quit. But these other players, the players that were responsible were just banned. Well, that's because they're players. Nobody wants to get rid of their good merchandise. He looked at himself and said, I've in a way enabled this, or maybe he just said, this looks so bad for me, I've got only one option. But wasn't there political pressure as well

from the Prime Minister of Australia? Well, that's a good reason to quit. well from the Prime Minister of Australia. Well that's a good reason to quit. Yes some pressure from external pressure indeed. It was it was certainly very interesting to see the events that then followed which was the response from the Australian public after they saw the players remorseful apologetic and even teary-eyed on the screen, what happened to the Australian public? What? They became empathic. Well, I mean, but isn't that what you want to do? Isn't that what happens when you have a familiarity with somebody, when you feel as though you know them? Like, for instance, if a stranger

when you feel as though you know them. Like, for instance, if a stranger does something terrible, you say, what an awful person. But if a family member does the same thing, then you look for a reason why they did it. You try your best to justify it in some way. It sounds reasonable, but it's not always the case. I mean, take someone like, I know it's not an exactly analogous situation, but Tiger Woods, you know, he was in the hearts of many people and, and, and they,

they were not soft in their response. And I, it's not a perfect analogy because there were consecutive issues, but, um, so there, there can be very different responses that aren't empathic from from people that are third parties that felt attached to the players is is this a singular act or do you find that this has to be a party agreement in any in an act of cheating agreement in an act of cheating. Singular meaning these two people on the team. No, no. If we come out of the cricket situation and look at it as a broad spectrum, do you find it's just one person acting alone or is this a series of people who combine to take this on and cheat? It varies from situation to situation. But what we do find is that teams that are very close can also be at more of a risk to cheat because they do everything together.

So that's not always an intervening factor. Now, team culture is different than a team that identifies culturally as one. Well, and you're right, because, you know, there was a scandal, I believe, I don't know what school district this was, I believe it was Atlanta, if I'm not mistaken, I could be, where the teachers got together and helped students cheat on a test that was a very important test. And I mean, I'm sure that screws you up as a teacher. I mean, as a student, you know, that's got to screw your mind. It's just like, wait a minute, you're the one who wants me to cheat? Like, get out of here. But it's because those teachers who were very close as a unit felt as though that their reputations were on the line.

So the children really didn't mean anything to them. The children were just upon to further their own goals. That's really an interesting point because at play, psychologically, from my perspective with the Australian cricket team, was a cognitive shift from seeing the risk is not worthy of cheating seeing the risk is worthy and what you just described was a similar change in cognition with those teachers right the the consequences were worse were worth the possible uh risk yeah do you find that at one level I look at this this scenario and go, there must be an unbelievable amount of arrogance because there are so many cameras. You are so obviously scrutinized. And then I look further back and think, what if it's not cheating to these individuals? Because this thing has happened for decades that they've grown up

with ball tampering in cricket and it's normalizing the behavior yeah so what what if they haven't in their own mind broken the rule they've not cheated because the rules are such that that's always been like that i think it's a really important aspect and one of the very critical reasons people cheat. They find ways to normalize it. Now, whether that's true or not, we can question. But in their mind, it's a way to normal cheater who breaks the laws or like marriage or relationships? A lot of people when they're in a relationship, they feel like, hey, we're exclusive. It should just be us.

all across the world, no matter what it is, how religious or not, you have people who cheat on their wives or their husbands. That's all there is to it. Is this something that is just in us, like as human beings, or do the same confluence of events come together to cause a person to do it? Well, you know, the desire to cheat in a relationship can stem from some similar cognitions as cheating in sports, although it's not a perfect similarity. The cheating in relationships, you know, oftentimes occur because of an interpersonal need for connectedness. And there's evolutionary psychology and it's a different perspective but this idea of needing to connect it's in the dna you know there's a there's a cohort of people that propose that that that's that's more of a baseline need than being monogamous you know it everyone has their different perspectives but but that's one. And that need for interpersonal connection is different than per se,

than what we're seeing more in this particular Australian cricket situation, which is what? We're seeing that in that instance, in the heat of the moment, they're making a decision to take a risk that seems worthy to them. Interesting. I just wonder now, to take this to another level, if Chuck and I are athletes... Ha ha! Ha ha ha ha! Well, only one of us can laugh at that, and that'd be me. Okay, so this is obviously a make-believe scenario.

And then we find ourselves in a state-sponsored program where the state is doping and we're just fed into the machinery. How does an athlete cope with that? Or do they just say, you know what, I'm winning. I don't care. How do they cope with seeing other people? No, how do you cope if you know you're being put through the machinery of a state-sponsored program where you are cheating. Like Russia, to be honest.

As an athlete, do you start to examine yourself and say, I'm only doing well because of, or do you just say, I don't care, I'm winning? Well, I think there's another interesting point about identity, right? Well, I think there's another interesting point about identity, right? You're assuming the overarching identity of the organization and therefore changing perhaps what would be your internal based behavior based so that your identity that you've now accepted matches the way you're behaving. Yeah, I mean, that's pretty wild. So now that wouldn't apply to the person who just wants to win at everything. Like, I have a friend who, I mean, you know. Yeah, yeah. We'll call him Buck Rice. Chuck. Yeah, yeah. We'll call him Buck Rice.

Yes. Yeah, okay. I have this friend, Buck Rice, and can't stand to lose at anything, okay? And so if perhaps you're playing pool and you see that the ball grazed another ball, it's like, no, it didn't. That didn't happen. And, like, clearly we all saw it happen but since there's no camera no instant replay you know no that didn't happen no and i'm taking my next shot what is in the mind of that

person because that's a form of cheating yeah what is going on in that brain that makes somebody feel like it's okay like to me you lost the game when you did that like when you made that move right there you lost you lost the game as far as i'm concerned because yeah yeah because at that point it's like how can this win mean anything when you know that you got it on the cheap but you know that's me buck rice on the other hand that cheating bastard he doesn't care. So what's going on? You know, it's a lot of focus on external outcomes as opposed to processes, which in the long run from a sports psychology perspective is derailing to any type of performance. But in the moment, they're after a concrete ball, which is numbers are a win. And what's so interesting is that these behaviors,

the line that you just talked about, calling a ball in when it's out, we see it as young and young children on, let's say, the tennis court. And you wonder, where did they learn that? Is that neurologically driven or is that something they observed and then modeled? We're blaming John McEnroe. Yeah, that's all John McEnroe's fault. But even beyond that, like for instance,

like you'll play Cal, you know, you shoot him up, right? You're playing a shoot-em-up game with your friends, right? Right, yeah. You got sticks and you pop up from behind a rock. You're point blank from your friend. Pow, pow. I shot you. He's sitting right there.

You didn't get me. No, you didn't get me. How the hell could I not got you? I got you. I put the stick to your friend. Pow, pow. I shot you. He's sitting right there. You didn't get me. No, you didn't get me. How the hell could I not got you? I got you. I put the stick to your head. I blew your brains out. Children. No.

We are dealing with adults here in a professional athletic scenario. But no, the adults do the same thing. So I have an interesting question for you because I think we're leading towards it, which is what are the factors that can predispose someone to be a cheater in sport right yes how do we screen for that so many many years i've helped different nfl teams screen players assessments at the combine

and they want to know specific questions all right and and a common one is what kind of risk does this player bring to the team and and there can be ways different ways to assess it but one of the most frequent frequent ways is to assess for other risk behaviors and outside of say cheating what what are some of those risk behaviors that come to mind to you? Oh, okay. So if I bring this guy into, or this woman into the locker room, are they toxic?

Is their behavior therefore contagious? Are they narcissistic? I want to know. Are they actually going to... That narcissism is... I'm sure that could lead to cheating. Well, are they actually going to turn up for every training session on time? If the bus leaves for the airport at 8 a.m., are they going to make it? I know for a fact that some soccer clubs, when they're spending an awful lot of money,

will put a private detective. What? Yeah. That's an awful lot of money to be spending on an individual. Tell me about it. Like, you got MI6 going after a guy? I can't possibly. That's an awful lot of money to be spending on an individual. Tell me about it. Like you got MI6 going after a guy? I can't possibly. Well, just James Bond.

That's enough. So, yeah, so I think there's all that sort of thing that goes on. Gosh, what are they looking for? Yeah. So the likelihood is for you to, if you engage in one type of risk behavior, you're going to engage in other cohorts or other types of risk behaviors, things like drinking, drug abuse. Have you been expelled from your team? Why? Have you been suspended from school?

Have you driven under the influence. So lots of these different types of behaviors can serve as red flags, per se, to understand or predict the likelihood that this person engages in high-risk behaviors overall. Past certainly dictates the future. Wow. Doctor, do you want to recruit only saints? Well, that's a very beautiful question. Because sometimes I know the guy I want has to have a little bit of grit because it's that that's going to get me the oyster I need. That's right.

a little bit of grit because it's that that's going to get me the oyster I need. That's right. And so those are some of the questions the coaches answer. The psychologists provide the information and the coaches decide what's proficient or acceptable for each position. Is it worth it? Interesting. Wow. Wow. The problem is if you have a whole team of high risk, you're and there are teams that are known to accept more high risk. The Raiders, the bad Raiders, bad news bears. I can see what you see that then gets the culture of that recruitment gets driven by the head coach.

And the head coach. That's right. And the head coach might just want a dirty dozen, as it were. Look, head coaches, you're right, have different perspectives on what they need. Yeah. And so you won't always get the same questions for screening players each year from each coach. Gotcha. It may be different factors based upon what's important in their eyes. Wow. Wow.

Doctor, thank you. This has been fascinating. Yes, it has been. Thank you once again for your time and your insight. My pleasure. Great to see you both. Likewise. Wow.

Yeah, Chuck. I'm going to have to go cheat someplace and indulge in some very risky behavior. But is it all worth it? Is it all about the W? It's never worth it, because the truth is, I mean, seriously, in the quiet of the night at 3 o'clock in the morning when you can't sleep and you're staring at the ceiling and you're recounting in your mind the parade and being hoisted up on the shoulders

and the jumping up on the mound and getting the ring, and you know that all of that is based on a lie. I mean... Some people can live with that. Yeah. See, that metal is hollow. Right. Rather than being solid, precious metal.

Mm-hmm. And I know people, and I've worked with and played alongside guys, that would not be an issue. You wouldn't care. I got the ring, that's all that counts. Wake up in the middle of the night. Are you kidding? All right.

Sleep all the way through. See, I couldn't do it. See, for me the way through. See, I couldn't do it. See, for me, personally, it's like I couldn't do it. That's what would eat at me. You know what I mean? I'm the kind of guy that if I say the wrong thing at a party, I think about it for three weeks. You know what I mean?

Like, God, why did I say that? That had to be so. That was the dumbest thing. I can't believe I said that. I'm sure that person thinks I'm such an a-hole. Like, you know? Yeah, yeah, yeah. And, you know, it's called being responsible,

having a conscience. Oh, God. Right. That sounds awful. I don't know. Some people give it a try. Some people don't. There you go.

Right. I'm Gary O'Reilly. And I'm Chuck Nice. You are Chuck Nice. You are. Yeah, the nice Chuck Nice. There you go. And this has been Playing With Science.

I hope you've enjoyed our show. It's been quite insightful, and we look forward to seeing you all soon.