Blog Week 6
Article #1
In
his news article, Performance-enhancing
drugs in sports is sickening, sports editor Patrick Saunders makes an
effective argument. Saunders is completely against drug use in sport. He makes
this very clear with his first statement, in which he compares
performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) to a virus. This article was published
following cyclist Lance Armstrong’s accusations to blood doping in 2016. This
makes the topic relevant, as many viewers at the time may have heard the news
about Armstrong. Saunders uses other professional athletes and their thoughts
on drugs to back him up. Also, Saunders acknowledges the other side of the
argument, explaining an argument that he and a friend always debate.
Saunders’
evidence is very convincing. He quotes basketball All-Star Derrick Rose to
support himself. Rose claimed in an interview that he thinks PEDs are a problem
in the National Basketball Association (NBA). I think this supports Saunders,
especially because Rose is a professional athlete who deals with PEDs first
hand. Saunders then displays a list of bullet points in which he delivers his
opinion. While he does that, he throws in facts about some history of doping in
sport.
I
think that the layout of Saunders article makes it effective in arguing his
case. First, he introduces the topic and tells the audience what side he is on.
Then he acknowledges both sides of the argument, which shows that he
understands and respects the other opinion. While he does this, he is still
firmly against drug use. After showing both sides of the argument, he refutes
the other side, and compiles a list of facts and opinions as to why his opinion
is correct. In my opinion, this is a logical order and makes me think that the
author knows what he is talking about. He seems intelligent, and well-informed
of the topic, which is made clear by his acknowledgement of the other side.
I
think that this article is very well written. Saunders mentions that he would
have liked to be able to compare current athletes such as Barry Bonds with
older athletes like Hank Aaron and Babe Ruth. Aaron and Ruth were baseball
players that hold the second and third most career home runs in all of Major
League Baseball (MLB). While Aaron and Ruth did not take steroids, it is difficult
to compare Bonds, who holds the record for career home runs, to them because
Bonds did take drugs. I think that these statistics, and in other sports too,
are a great way to show the effects of PEDs. I think that Saunders should have
included more statistics and emphasized the importance of them to help his
case. I also think that Saunders could have included more examples of drug
users. There have been so many athletes that have taken PEDs and I think it is
important to show that.
One
thing that Saunders should have done differently has to do with his graphics.
Saunders included four photos in his article. The photos showed Barry Bonds,
Marion Jones, Bill Romanowski and Rich Jackson. Saunders mentions both Bonds and
Jones, but does not mention Romanowski or Jackson. Saunders does not give any
more info than the photo caption regarding these photos. As a reader, I was
confused about the purpose of the last two photos. I would have included other
photos about other people or objects that he mentions in his article. Perhaps I
would have shown a before and after photo of an athlete who took steroids, to
show how much of a difference they can make.
Article #2
Ellis
Cashmore proposes an idea completely against Saunders. While not in response to
Saunders, or related in any way at all, this article gives a unique take on
steroid and drug use. Similarly, this article was written after the accusation
of Armstrong, but time during a different accusation. This one was in 2012.
Cashmore makes an effective case. He uses many of the same things Saunders did.
He uses facts, acknowledges the other side, and voices his opinion. His tone is
very calm and collected, giving the audience respect for the author. While
everyone may not agree with Cashmore, his opinion and evidence provide enough
information and logic to at least make the reader give a second thought towards
his view.
Cashmore’s
evidence is a mixture of facts and opinion. He uses history to back his views.
He claims that fans enjoy the thrill of watching certain feats being unfolded.
He says that many people enjoyed watching Lance Armstrong finish 7 minutes
ahead of the next competitor at the 2002 Tour de France. He discusses the problem
of doping starting in 1988 when athlete Ben Johnson was disqualified for drugs.
He uses that as a basis to make other claims, such that testing has advanced
since 1988 but has never been ahead of its time. While this is an opinion
piece, Cashmore also uses facts.
While
I disagree with Cashmore, his argument is strong enough for me to understand
where he is coming from. I think that this shows how well the piece was
written. There are people who are not very open-minded and who will never
change their opinion. While that is true, Cashmore allows people to understand
where he comes from. I think that Cashmore may have convinced a number of people
to agree with him- that doping should be made legal.
Similar
to Saunders, Cashmore could have included more examples. While Saunders’ piece
was short relative to Cashmore’s, Saunders was able to include just as many
examples as Cashmore did. Since Cashmore’s piece was longer, he should have
given more examples. I would have liked to see more specific examples where
fans were thoroughly entertained by athletes who took drugs. I also would have
like to see more facts about the drugs themselves. I think that this is
important in letting the reader know that the author knows his stuff.
Instead
of providing reason after reason why he thinks drugs should be legal, I think he
should have elaborated on one point or a few more points. For example, Cashmore
makes the claim that if drugs were made legal, athletes would be safer. He says
this because of the large number of drugs that are being created in order to
beat drug testing. If Cashmore would have been able to discuss the negative
side effects of some of these drugs, and then discuss that certain drugs have
less or zero side effects, he might have been able to convince more of the
audience. On the whole, I think that Cashmore did a great job, and I would not
change much more.
Works
Cited
Cashmore, Ellis. “Opinion: It's Time to Allow Doping in
Sport.” CNN, Cable News Network, 24
Oct. 2012,
www.cnn.com/2012/10/23/opinion/cashmore-time-to-allow-doping-in-sport/index.html.
Saunders, Patrick. “Performance-Enhancing Drugs in Sports
Is Sickening.” The
Denver Post, The Denver Post, 3 May 2016, www.denverpost.com/2011/05/25/performance-enhancing-drugs-in-sports-is-sickening/.
Comments
Post a Comment