A teenage sumo wrestler just embarking on his career is bullied and hazed to death, yet nothing is done about it for months by either the Japan Sumo Association or the police — even after flags are raised. A sumo grand champion is banned for a perceived infraction, and then comes down with a stress disorder, further hobbling efforts by this conservative sport to shed an image long-tainted by allegations of abuses at stables and fixed matches.

A popular pro boxer, coached by his father and brother, and respected for continuing a family dynasty in the ring, gets caught fighting dirty after having been taught to do so.

These anomalies have given Japanese sports a collective black eye. What role, if any, has attitude, or money, played in the commission of such acts?

Was it an "attitude problem" that the now-banned stable master Tokitsukaze decided to correct when he hit 17-year-old Takashi Saito over the head with a beer bottle and allowed senior wrestlers, including one wielding a baseball bat, to bash him to death?

What could be said about Tokitsukaze's own attitude when he reportedly suggested to Saito's parents that their son's battered corpse be cremated quickly so that they, and the police, wouldn't have to view it? Had Saito (ring name Tokitaizan) failed to show signs of becoming a professional contender? Did Tokitsukaze see it as his duty, then, to instill in him a competitive spirit, the ability to take one for the team, and other lessons that he believed would serve him in good stead as he climbed the sumo ladder?

Why did Daiki Kameda allegedly heed his coach-father Shiro and fight dirty, thus sidelining his own career while getting his brother, Koki, reprimanded and his father banned? Instead of apologizing for his actual misdeeds, Kameda's father reportedly said: "I'm sorry for having caused so much trouble." Could this lack of remorse signal a manifest sense of entitlement pushed by the craving for big TV money and ratings?