Since then, the topic of the ethics of winning has been debated upon constantly over and over again. Do the results matter more than how you play the game? The word game does not signify any sport, rather does not have a specific meaning at all. The game can signify a certain sport, work, or our whole lives which, in today's world is overflowing with immense competition. Is how you live more important than what you achieve? Way

This debate took over a major portion of my brain for a solid two months after attending an All India Football Tournament in the hills of Shimla. The team was having a good run in form and we finished on top of our respective group. However, the previous game we had played had left me extremely dissatisfied. We had the luck of scoring an early goal. However, after the goal the team just sat back and defended, the second we took possession of the ball we used to clear it to the other side and then defend again. We registered just two shots and yet, won the game. Even after winning the game, I was not in the mood of celebrating. I was disappointed with the win.

The next game we played, the quarterfinals, we played a good brand of attacking football. However, after the best of our efforts, we lost the game 2-1. But, I was satisfied. I was proud of the football we had played. At that very moment, I realized I preferred playing the game right than winning.

Similarly, in the gym, I find it imperative to gain muscle without the use of steroids and other drugs. The fact that the steroids provide an unfair advantage over non-users undermine the satisfaction of having a great body. It feels like cheating. Therefore, to me, the process of the results matter more than the result itself.

However, there are many existing counterclaims and arguments which majorly differ from my opinion. If the use of anything which enhances performances is 'cheating' then essentially basic items like shoes should also be disallowed. What is defined as unethical and what as ethical? For example, George Leigh Mallory a renowned mountaineer, considered the use of oxygen cylinders while scaling mountains unethical. But most of the mountaineers to have scaled Mount Everest used oxygen cylinders to battle the low availability of oxygen at high altitudes.

On the other hand, coaches like Jose Mourinho (Manchester United, Head Coach) and Matt Patricia (Detroit Lions, Head Coach) have continuously been delivering results playing a defensive/boring game in their respective sports. They prioritize results over the game and seem to be very content in doing so.

Therefore, the debate on winning the 'right way' goes on with extremely abstract answers depending on different individuals.

For me, the use of substances/things not accessible to others and the deviation of rules and gameplay to attain an unfair advantage over other competitors is defined as winning unethically. I would prefer the enjoyment of the game and the thrill of living my life than being bound by plans and the pressure of obtaining results.

This opinion on ethical winning can differ from person to person and it is, therefore, wise to look at different perspectives to get a complete, unbiased idea of the same.

"It's a fool's gold if you're winning and not playing the right way."