Blog Week 3 Homework

Article #1

Mathew A. Cabot, Associate Professor at Whitworth University, offers a unique perspective on steroids and performance enhancing drugs (PED’s) in her article, Barry Bonds vs. The Media; Sour Barry. Whitehouse shows baseball player Barry Bond’s evolution of career. Whitehouse explains Bond’s time with major league team, The San Francisco Giants. Bonds signs, at the time, a record deal for a free agent. He signs to play with the Giants for 44 million dollars. During his first few years with the club, he lacked the type of play he was hyped up to. He was arrogant and infatuated with himself. He refused to talk to the media, and the media hated him for it. By the spring of 1999, Bonds looked entirely different. His body had transformed to the point where his teammates called him the Hulk. Later he broke Mark McGuire’s single season home run record. He was close to approaching Hank Aaron’s all time record. Following these few seasons, Bond’s agent tried work an endorsement deal for him, and Bonds turned into a new person with the media. He answered as many questions as he could. With Bond’s new play and new personality, more fans came to games, and more fans bought merchandise. In the following years, Bond’s would be accused and guilty of using steroids. He went on to break Aaron’s record in 2007. In 2007, Bond’s retired. He left behind him a legacy. Whitehead question’s whether Bond’s personality and steroid use was a good thing for the sport of baseball.

This article is important to my topic and my research. Whitehouse offers a perspective about steroids that I failed to see. By explaining the history of Barry Bonds and his time in San Francisco, I am able to see that steroids boosted revenue and popularity of the Giants and of the sport of baseball. While steroids are typically associated with negative thoughts regarding cheating, this offers a counter-argument. I know that I must look at both sides when writing a persuasive essay.

Cabot, Mathew A. “Barry Bonds vs. The Media” Journal of Mass

Media Ethics, vol. 26, no. 1, Jan-March2011, pp. 66-70

EBSCOhost, doi:1080/08900523.2010.497038.

Article #2

            The Christian Science Monitor, an international news organization, argues the morality of drug use in sport. In wake of Lance Armstrong’s confession to blood doping while cycling, an article was published on the use of drugs in sport. They argue that no drug should be allowed in sport, stating that it was wrong of Michael Phelps to have been caught smoking marijuana after his 8 Olympic gold medals in Beijing. It is not clear whether Phelps used marijuana to help him swim. Sport is a competition of moral and fair play. Any use of any drug is immoral and therefore breaks the definition of sport. The news organization claims that any drug should be illegal. They argue that organizations are awful at testing for drug use, stating that over 7% of college athletes were found to have gains in weight and muscle of over 20 pounds. The article claims that while Armstrong was wrong in doping, all kinds of drugs need to be banned from sport.

            This article, similarly to the one above, offers another unique perspective to my research of drugs in sports. While PED’s are often thought to be just synthetic testosterone and anabolic steroids, it includes the use of marijuana and ibuprofen. Marijuana can relive stress and anxiety before a competition, and ibuprofen temporarily masks the pain caused by one’s body, effectively influencing play and morality. The ethics of drug use is going to be a large part of my research, so this is great for that, especially the examples of Armstrong and Phelps.

“Lance Armstrong Doping Confession: In any Sport, Drugs are Drugs.”

            Christian Science Monitor, 17 Jan. 2013. EBSCOhost,

            dist.lib.usu.edu/login?

            url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=84995118&site=
            ehost-live.