Ashby, April. "Why Steroids Have No Place in Sports." Marquette University Law School. Marquette University, 20 Oct. 2010. Web. 16 Oct. 2013.
This is an article by a teacher in Marquette Law School. It talks about how steroids affect your body negatively. You can be supseptible to serious health repercussions, including affected liver, endocrine, and reproductive function, tumors of the liver and kidneys, heart conditions, and psychiatric symptoms. Overuse or counterfeit steroids lead to these. Sports athletes even if given the properr dosage will take one more. Also doping affects the integrity of sports.
The viewpoint repeats the opinion about integrity but brings the medical standpoint also.
VETTING THE SOURCE: April Ashby is a graduate of Marquette University Law School. She also received the Sports Law Certificate from the National Sports Law Institute and served as a member of the Marquette Sports Law Review. She is co-owner of Stellata Collective, a social media consulting and web design firm
Monday, October 21, 2013
WriteUps #6
Loumena, Dan. "John Rocker: Baseball Was More Entertaining in Steroids Era." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 11 July 2013. Web. 16 Oct. 2013.
This article is uses the words of John Rocker, a former baseball player. He says that baseball is more interesting with steroids. He says not to think of it ethically because the people paying for tickets don't actually care. They want to see monster homeruns and really fast pitches.
Another article talks tries to talk about how consumers really feel when attending a baseball game. This should be used as a survey to find out what people want to see.
VETTING THE SOURCE: Dan Loumena is a columnist for the Los Angeles Times and John Rocker is a former Major League pitcher and former steroid user.
This article is uses the words of John Rocker, a former baseball player. He says that baseball is more interesting with steroids. He says not to think of it ethically because the people paying for tickets don't actually care. They want to see monster homeruns and really fast pitches.
Another article talks tries to talk about how consumers really feel when attending a baseball game. This should be used as a survey to find out what people want to see.
VETTING THE SOURCE: Dan Loumena is a columnist for the Los Angeles Times and John Rocker is a former Major League pitcher and former steroid user.
Writeup #5
Smith, Michael F. "What If Novelists Took Steroids?" New York Times 11 Aug. 2013: SR5. New York Times. New York Times Company, 10 Aug. 2013. Web. 16 Oct. 2013.
The author describes what it would be like to take steroids and if he would if it were available. He explains the whole process of being pressured into taking, becoming one of the best writers in the world, writing bestseller after bestseller. But then he describes the fall from grace, the discovery of the usage. He decides that he wouldn't take them because when you take steroids you know it will end badly but if you don't anything could happen.
This editorial shows how steroids always ends badly and in shame for one who takes so you are better off playing sports clean and keeping your reputation in tact.
VETTING THE SOURCE: Michael Farris Smith is a novelist from Mississippi. He has been awarded the Mississippi Arts Commission Literary Arts Fellowship, the Transatlantic Review Award for Fiction, the Alabama Arts Council Fellowship Award for Literature, and the Brick Streets Press Short Story Award. His short fiction has twice been nominated for a Pushcart Prize and his essays have appeared with The New York Times, University Press of Mississippi, and more.
The author describes what it would be like to take steroids and if he would if it were available. He explains the whole process of being pressured into taking, becoming one of the best writers in the world, writing bestseller after bestseller. But then he describes the fall from grace, the discovery of the usage. He decides that he wouldn't take them because when you take steroids you know it will end badly but if you don't anything could happen.
This editorial shows how steroids always ends badly and in shame for one who takes so you are better off playing sports clean and keeping your reputation in tact.
VETTING THE SOURCE: Michael Farris Smith is a novelist from Mississippi. He has been awarded the Mississippi Arts Commission Literary Arts Fellowship, the Transatlantic Review Award for Fiction, the Alabama Arts Council Fellowship Award for Literature, and the Brick Streets Press Short Story Award. His short fiction has twice been nominated for a Pushcart Prize and his essays have appeared with The New York Times, University Press of Mississippi, and more.
Writeup #4
Smith, Chris. "Why It's Time To Legalize Steroids In Professional Sports." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 24 Aug. 2012. Web. 16 Oct. 2013.
Mr. Smith says that even with all these tests for performance enhancing drugs and harsh penalties for taking, steroids is not going away in professional sports. He believes that if steroids were just legalized, then everyone would take them and there would be a higher level of competition. From a business standpont, steroids would help sports like in the case of the homerun chase between noted users Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa. When they were chasing the single season homerun record, games and merchandise were sold out and baseball was exciting. The definition of what is a performance enhancer is very confusing and getting rid of steroids would relieve the people in charge of deciding of their confusing jobs. Steroids affect health but so does playing professional sports. Making PEDs legal would lead to proper distribution and regulation. Steroids affect those entered into the Hall of Fame because of suspicion that everyone took but if they are legal, then there is no shadow. Baseball has changed so much in the past 100 years that you can't compare eras. Athletes are going to take sterois anyway so might as well make them legal.
This viewpoint refutes the Hall of Fame point made in the New York Times article. It says legalizing steroids wouldn't change the Hall of Fame because the different eras of baseball have all changed. Just like they raised the pitchers mound to give the batters a better chance, steroids gives everyone a fair chance because everyone is doing it.
VETTING THE SOURCE: Chris Smith is a reporter for Forbes Sports. He covers the business of sports.
Mr. Smith says that even with all these tests for performance enhancing drugs and harsh penalties for taking, steroids is not going away in professional sports. He believes that if steroids were just legalized, then everyone would take them and there would be a higher level of competition. From a business standpont, steroids would help sports like in the case of the homerun chase between noted users Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa. When they were chasing the single season homerun record, games and merchandise were sold out and baseball was exciting. The definition of what is a performance enhancer is very confusing and getting rid of steroids would relieve the people in charge of deciding of their confusing jobs. Steroids affect health but so does playing professional sports. Making PEDs legal would lead to proper distribution and regulation. Steroids affect those entered into the Hall of Fame because of suspicion that everyone took but if they are legal, then there is no shadow. Baseball has changed so much in the past 100 years that you can't compare eras. Athletes are going to take sterois anyway so might as well make them legal.
This viewpoint refutes the Hall of Fame point made in the New York Times article. It says legalizing steroids wouldn't change the Hall of Fame because the different eras of baseball have all changed. Just like they raised the pitchers mound to give the batters a better chance, steroids gives everyone a fair chance because everyone is doing it.
VETTING THE SOURCE: Chris Smith is a reporter for Forbes Sports. He covers the business of sports.
WriteUps #3
"Shutout in Cooperstown." Editorial. New York Times 11 Jan. 2013: A22. New York Times Company, 10 Jan. 2013. Web. 16 Oct. 2013.
This editorial from the New York Times explains the effect of steroids on the Bseball Hall of Fame where the greatest basbeall players of all time are enshrined for all of eternitiy. There are many alcoholics and bad personalities already entered into the Hall of Fame who just have the stats required to get in. But steroids affects a lot more than statistics. It affected both people using and the clean ones. The users set the highest standards so the clean/ already solid players didn't look as good statistically against them and the journeymen who had to use steroids just to stay in the league and risk their health. It also affected people who may not have done steroids but have the shadow lingering over their heads. In conclusion, to lessen the incentive of steroids and further baseball from the steroid culture, do not allow these cheaters in the Hall of Fame.
This editorial doesn't focus on the cheaters themselves but on the people they affect. Steroids affects from clean players to those who are barely staying in the league. The Hall of Fame should be a representative of statistics that a baseball player accrued over his playing years. But a steroid user's negative externalities should be taken into account as well.
VETTING THE SOURCE: The New York Times Editorial Board is composed of 19 journalists with wide-ranging areas of expertise. Their primary responsibility is to write The Times’s editorials, which represent the voice of the board, its editor and the publisher. The board is part of the Times’s editorial department, which is operated separately from the Times newsroom, and includes the Letters to the Editor and Op-Ed sections.
This editorial from the New York Times explains the effect of steroids on the Bseball Hall of Fame where the greatest basbeall players of all time are enshrined for all of eternitiy. There are many alcoholics and bad personalities already entered into the Hall of Fame who just have the stats required to get in. But steroids affects a lot more than statistics. It affected both people using and the clean ones. The users set the highest standards so the clean/ already solid players didn't look as good statistically against them and the journeymen who had to use steroids just to stay in the league and risk their health. It also affected people who may not have done steroids but have the shadow lingering over their heads. In conclusion, to lessen the incentive of steroids and further baseball from the steroid culture, do not allow these cheaters in the Hall of Fame.
This editorial doesn't focus on the cheaters themselves but on the people they affect. Steroids affects from clean players to those who are barely staying in the league. The Hall of Fame should be a representative of statistics that a baseball player accrued over his playing years. But a steroid user's negative externalities should be taken into account as well.
VETTING THE SOURCE: The New York Times Editorial Board is composed of 19 journalists with wide-ranging areas of expertise. Their primary responsibility is to write The Times’s editorials, which represent the voice of the board, its editor and the publisher. The board is part of the Times’s editorial department, which is operated separately from the Times newsroom, and includes the Letters to the Editor and Op-Ed sections.
WriteUps #2
Lee, DeborahGriswold, Ann. “Counterpoint:
Athletes Should be Tested for Drugs.” Points Of View: Drug Testing For Sports (2011): 3. Points of View
Reference Center. Web. 14 Nov. 2011
Don’t allow
athletes to break the rules in a painfully obvious way. Steroids are illegal
and should not be tolerated. To protect the integrity, you must test. There are rules in professional sports that must be followed to maintain fair competition. Steroids give you an unfair advantage so they should be illegal. It is that simple. If you don't want to be tested, then don't play professional sports. The constitution does not apply because there is a contract signed by athletes that is voluntary that they won't take illegal substances. If anything, there is legal fraud because the paying audiences expect that everyone is playing clean.
This counterpoint to writeup 2 refutes the constitutional argument brought by writeup 1. It says that since it is voluntary to play professional sports, it is not unconstitutional.
VETTING THE SOURCE: Points of view reference Center is a database that contains many viewpoints to help students develop research and opposite editorial essays. It is supported by the Binghamton library.
VETTING THE SOURCE: Points of view reference Center is a database that contains many viewpoints to help students develop research and opposite editorial essays. It is supported by the Binghamton library.
WriteUps #1
1) Jacobs, W. E.Newton, Heather.
"Counterpoint: Athletes Have The Same Rights As All Other
Citizens." Points Of View: Drug Testing For Sports (2011):
3. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 14 Nov. 2011
The author
states that drug testing in sports violates the 4th and 5th
amendments. Drug testing is against the assumption that you are innocent until
proven guilty. He compares the random testing and searches are equivalent to a
police state who invade privacy. Professional athletes are given the same drug
tests that are given to prisoners and criminals even though athletes do not
harm society. There are still steroids going around in sports today even with
all the mandatory drug testing. The high profile cases of Barry Bonds and Roger
Clemens were the big breakers in the steroids in baseball cases and even in
other sports like Track and field and cycling have had their share of users.
Drug testing is only common with athletes and not with other professionals in
other industries even though some of those individuals probably also take
drugs. And athletes in professional and school sports not only are tested for
steroids but also recreational drugs, which do not affect performance. The
author believes that these are invasive tests and it is wrong that athletes are
singled out and presumed to be guilty until proven innocent.
This editorial is of the anti- steroid testing opinion. It brings a legal aspect to this argument saying that drug testing is akin to breaking the constitution.
VETTING THE SOURCE: Points of view reference Center is a database that contains many viewpoints to help students develop research and opposite editorial essays. It is supported by the Binghamton library.
VETTING THE SOURCE: Points of view reference Center is a database that contains many viewpoints to help students develop research and opposite editorial essays. It is supported by the Binghamton library.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)