The, The Public, Place The Best Athletes On Pedestals, By William Moller

“Why it’s time to legalize steroids in professional sports” written by Chris Smith of Forbes Magazine argues that to level the playing field of professional sports it would be beneficial to legalize the use of performance enhancing drugs. Mr. Smith’s ideals that professional sports would be a fairer, more entertaining version of itself if performance enhancing drugs were legal, is an incredibly irresponsible and impudent declaration.

Athletics play such an important role in our society, but, unfortunately, some in professional sports are not setting much of an example. The use of performance-enhancing drugs like steroids in baseball, football, and other sports is dangerous, and it sends the wrong message -- that there are shortcuts to accomplishment, and that performance is more important than character. So tonight I call on team owners, union representatives, coaches, and players to take the lead, to send the right signal, to get tough, and to get rid of steroids now.”

Many athletes are particularly trusting with regards to performance enhancers because many of them are eager to be the best in their respective sport. At the professional level, where athletes are expected to perform at high levels, many who are desperate to keep their jobs will do whatever they can to match the standard. In their book Death in the Locker Room, authors Bob Goldman, Patricia Bush, and Ronald Klatz discuss this immense pressure athletes feel to use PEDs. The authors explain how players often place this pressure on themselves because of an overwhelming desire to become famous, adored athletes.

Culture can arguable be the thing that is impacted the most from the use of performance-enhancing drugs. People in the everyday society look to the countries greatest pasttime for inspiration and an escape from their everyday life. “Few sports-related events have garnered as much interest and as much cynicism as the steroid scandal in baseball.” (Ringeret al 91) It’s damage crushed the spirit of many individuals, “[b]oth ardent fans and casual observers wonder why proffessional baseball players would choose to use such substances when their use is viewed as outside the bounds of fair play.” (Ringeret al 91) There may not be a true reasoning, unflawed, as to why PED’s were thought acceptable to players, but research shows that values and norms in the culture of competitive sports often differ from commonly held social norms about what is fair and what is not.

A Poll by the Press in ’04 says that sixty-one percent of eight hundred and sixty-five people surveyed that all the athletes in baseball that were tested for steroids and shown positive should have been banned from the game. In the year 2005 it was discovered that two out of three people agreed with banning the players who made it to the Hall of Fame but tested positive for steroids. Most if not all people consider this action cheating and frown upon its use. How could this be? In today’s readings of sports articles and papers, fans tend to think that steroids give other players an unfair advantage. This response branches out from the false accusations that the professionals have a kind of special ability or talent which isn’t based on their state of being. What makes steroids different from other enhancing products is that the effects that come with taking them are a little more severe and that the result for muscle and strength production is a lot greater than the other products that are out in the market. This assumption, and the stereotypical muscle head body that comes with it, makes a fan or spectator of the game think about Calvinism, the belief that ingesting any kind of pill or product for any reason at all is bad and looked down on, and leads to the social aspect of the world to call these people aliens or fakes, which happen to be the main points that really keep steroids out of the Majors.

Famed writer Grantland Rice once wrote, “When the great scorer comes to mark against your name. He'll mark not won or lost but how you played the game” (World of quotes, 1). That buoyant attitude of selflessness and heart has slowly diminished throughout the course of time. Now, George Allen’s booming voice, former coach of the Washington Redskins, runs throughout head of America, “Only winners are truly alive. Winning is living. Every time you win, you’re reborn. When you lose, you die a little” (Harris, 67). It is with this frame of mind that athletes are pushed beyond the edge of reason. Although peer pressure and pressure from coaches are central reasons why one may use steroids, most users begin using in order to improve their self image or excel in sports. Ethics, integrity, and legality aside, some athletes will stop at nothing to attain “that extra edge”.

To concur with William Moller I believe “we, the public, place the best athletes on pedestals.” (pg. 547) It 's no ones fault but the user for taking drugs but Moller in his article argues that society plays a part. The article makes the reader wonder if anyone can really help but take this one little drug that will move them much farther ahead. That even maybe it 's our fault for giving so much fame and attention to athletes that play well.

The most commonly discussed issue in sports of the 21st century is the use of performance enhancing drugs by professional athletes. Over the past four years, it has been nearly impossible to turn on the television without hearing something about athletes and these drugs. From former National League MVP Third Baseman Ken Caminiti's admission of steroid use in an issue of Sports Illustrated (Verducci, 2004) to 2006 Tour de France Champion Floyd Landis being stripped of title due to a failed doping test (Blue, 2006) virtually every sport is involved. Are performance enhancing drugs a substance that threatens the very existence of professional sports, or are they the future? Perhaps the issue

These findings could help lawmakers and leagues respond to doping scandals, and help athletes polish their personal brand.To do this, the researchers had the surveyees read a section on Joe, an amateur weightlifter that was considering using steroids for the first time. In some of the sections distributed, Joe could gain a clear advantage by using steroids, and in others it wouldn’t make as much of a difference. Afterwards, the surveyees would rate how “wrong” it was for Joe to use steroids on a scale of 1-9, with 9 being “extremely wrong”. It turned out that the vast majority ofpeople thought it was very immoral regardless of the scenario, with an average rating of 8, buttheir ratings went even higher in the scenarios where Joe gained an advantage through steroid use. This shows both a wide public hate of performance enhancing drugs, but also an even stronger hate for performance enhancing drugs creating an unfair advantage. The researchers the had a second group of surveyees consider one of 10 other scenarios, including whether Joe was acompetitive or recreational athlete, and whether the substance in question was illegal orprohibited by the rules, had health consequences, or affected the amount Joe had to work out. And, interestingly enough, these had little impact on how “wrong” taking the steroids wasperceived to be, except for the ones concerning whether or not the steroids were prohibited, and whether or not they were a health risk for the user. This led the researchers to conclude that while people respond to perceived violations of fairness, they respond more to laws andregulations and to health risks. This evidence could be useful to leagues or lawyers. By knowing what people hate, they can figure out how to frame things to gain the most sympathy, or take the most sympathy from their opponent. Ultimately, this article showcases the greatly negative public opinion of performance enhancing drugs. I think

In our society we have issues, and individual problems. The difference is that the former is a “public matter that transcends the environment of an individual”, while the latter is “within character and those areas of the social life” (Deanna 2015). Lots of people have subscripted to the latter theory for steroid abuse in professional sports with the medicalization of deviance as their framework. The medicalization of deviance is “the transformation of moral and legal into a medical condition” (Macionis, Gerber 2014). While this idea helps give us an understanding that there can be more nuance to an issue, it still contradicts with societal issues. In professional sports, the trend of steroid abuse is far too common.

“Should performance enhancing drugs be allowed in sports,” by Thomas H. Murray. Thomas Murray was President of the Hastings Center from 1999 to 2012. He is also involved in the World Anti-Doping Agency and a former member of the Sports Medicine Committee. Thomas Murray is against the use of performance-enhancing drugs in sports. According to Thomas Murray, “performance-enhancing drugs in sports can have the potential to cause a public health catastrophe.” People should realize “Steroids and stimulants have caused problems in the Olympics for decades”(Murray). With the use performance enhancing drugs being so widespread the Tour de France nearly collapsed. It not only is widespread in cycling, but also in baseball and many other sports. The argument is “that what one athlete chooses to do can affect everyone in that competition” (Murray). Professional athletes are role models for

This is a material world promoting material values, thus meaning that it should not be surprising to see individuals being willing to do everything in their power in order to make profits. Or should it? The sports community today is troubled by a series of athletes who have yielded to society's pressures and abandoned their principles with the purpose of taking performance enhancing drugs. It is difficult to determine if it would be normal for the masses to judge these individuals, concerning that they are actually one of the reasons for which these people have come to consider taking performance enhancing drugs in the first place. However, the only ones who can judge them are other hard-working sportspersons who have stood by their principles and who respect the idea of sport in general.

Athletes are tempted to use performance enhancement drugs to heighten their abilities in the performance of their sport. Which often consists of illegal or unethical use of these substances. Some reasons for the justification of their actions is to attain lucrative contracts, fame, and fortune. “It is the seduction of the quick fix—an immediacy to attain success—that drives so many people,” (Annie Hiyashi). Sometimes, it is the fear of losing it all that drives them to experiment with PED’s, not thinking that if caught, it will tarnish their reputation and will lose fame and

Many people believe that drug use in professional athletics is not a serious problem, however it is more widespread and serious than people think. In professional athletics the use of drugs is looked upon as somewhat of a serious problem, but is also very discrete and low key. Every once in a while one might see a prominent figure in a certain sport being reprimanded for the use of some outlawed drug, however this is just one of the many who happened to get caught. Athletes today seem to find no moral problem with using performance-enhancing drugs, or in other words cheating. Also many of them feel that because they are "stars" there should be no repercussions for their illegal activity.

In today’s sports world, performance enhancing drugs have become more and more of a problem. Famous athletes with prestigious accomplishments do not always play by the rules. Celebrities with countless amounts of fans and admirers turn out to be nothing but a cheater. These athletes earn millions of dollars to simply perform, entertain, and follow the rules of their respected sport. Unfortunately, performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) have changed the way people look at athletes and their legacies.