There are three perspectives to take in the performance enhancing drugs scandal in baseball. The baseball fans who are disgusted, those who are entertained, and the TV stations who are cashing in on the fans who are entertained. Regardless, all three have their legitimate reasons to have their own stances. With the stances given, I believe that the fans who are entertained have a reason to be excited due to the homerun surge in baseball.
Baseball's drug policy happened in 2004, long before anybody in the previous 100 plus years of baseball could have been prevented from taking these steroids and other drugs. With this type of instability in the baseball drug program, why start now? Sure, I am for equality amongst all of baseball's players, but preventing something that is impossible to prevent because of the excessive amounts of baseball players should not even be tried, but the containment should be attempted. If a person is found taking steroids, punish him. But why should we start marking asterisks when several generations of baseball players have gone by unnoticed. Many baseball records have been set without being tested for steroids. To start now would be ludacris. It is not the fairness of the morality of the situation, but the fairness of the overall situation.
With my sources, I will be able to prove how fans were more attracted to the game of baseball with the new found homerun surge. Fans are attracted to scoring, which the TV ratings show since 1998, when the surge started. Also, the fact that TV stations were made happy will be proved indirectly through the use of TV rating statistics. The use of personal opinions will be used to show how people also think that asterisks should not be given because the drug testing system is relatively new, and I agree with it.
3 comments:
After having read your original paper, I have also read your topic proposal. Based on what you wrote for the exploratory paper, I think that the proposal for the policy paper that you have formulated is very good. However, it is a little unclear exactly what your policy is, but I'm sure once you specifically determine that, you will be fine. You discuss three different perspectives that are different. I think that you will be successfuly with these perspectives. You seem to have a good handle on the number of sources that you are going to use and the content of these sources. I will be interested in reading this paper because I read your exploratory paper.
Jason, Ross is right: it is not clear what policy or proposal you are advocating! Are you just formulating a causal argument showing that steroid use helps pump up the interest to the game or are you suggesting that athletes be required to use steroids?Then it is not what the assignment asks you to do. What change are you trying to bring about by writing your paper? Perhaps you are trying to remove the stigma from steroid use? Well, then you do really need to formulate that clearly:-)
i think you're trying to say that performance enhancing drugs should be legal in professional sports because so many have already done it without getting in trouble and because it improves the popularity of the sport.if this is correct, i understand your policy and wow, that's an unusual response to the problem, but i'm interested to see how much research you find backing that policy
Post a Comment