Sport does not change improve an individual's character But is this a mark of the man, or of his sport? Is Warburton a pillar of the sporting ethics so proudly trumpeted in recent days? Likely not, and this is where so much coverage of the incident has got it wrong: no sport, no matter what its ethos, can possibly change or improve the character of a man. Ironically, modern sport owes almost everything to that belief: team sports proliferated when imperial officials needed incubators of British morality; American sports came from the need for recreational purity following Civil War; Olympic sports were resurrected as the French of the Belle Époque followed the British example. Sports, their legends claim, make men and gentlemen both. Except that reality makes wishful thinking of these claims. Take cricket, so often lauded as the true sport of gentlemen: its roots are found in Georgian gambling fora and its governing body has stewed in racial and financial corruption since its foundation. In the last decade, dozens of professionals have been embroiled in spot- or match-fixing, the English fell into bed with a Texan billionaire who knew too much of Mexican drug cartels, while the cardinal sin of questioning the umpire has been legitimised by the UDRS. The myth and the spirit of the sport endure, but here propaganda trumps reality. And as there, so elsewhere: sport is historically and institutionally shot through with odious behaviour. Motorsport, for so long protected by the grace of Sir Stirling Moss and Gentleman Jim Clark, is no more than a corporate catfight: Renault crashed at Singapore, McLaren spied on Ferrari, Michael Schumacher did everything under the sun. Cycling? Swimming? Athletics? Let's take a rain-check on that blood test. Football? Whores and fiscal whoredom abound. Rugby has no better record. Why is the Lions tour of "74 remembered for Willie John McBride and not decried for its credulous ignorance of apartheid? Comparison between Warburton and Wayne Rooney, sent off against Montenegro last Wednesday, has been drawn widely. Look at the proud Welshman; now look at the simian Scouser. Rugby, the crows have come, teaches men to accept bitter judgment and to deal with its consequences. Warburton had learned; Rooney had not. This, apparently, was the mark of the sportsman, crafted by the moral discipline of his chosen pastime. Sure, no sport is innocent - all sportsmen are human, after all. But the notion that cricket, rugby, or any weapon of the British sporting empire might improve the character of a man is nothing but cant: human flaws carried onto the pitch are carried off it just the same. As I said, the behaviour of the Welsh captain has been a mark of the man, not of his sport.