Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
“Why it’s time to legalize steroids in professional sports?”
Transcript of “Why it’s time to legalize steroids in professional sports?”
The author discuses that performing enhancing drugs in professional sport gives an unfair advantage over the rest of the field. Various professional sports have tried to set the level of playing field by testing for drug use and suspend those found guilty (Smith,2012,para2)
Published: Aug 24 2012
Controversial and Informative article
The author argues that legalizing PED would make life easier for professional sports organizations currently tasked with managing convoluted anti-doping policies (Smith,2012,para6) and can avoid what migh be “too enhancing” but they can save the trouble and embarrassment just like the tests on Ryan Braun (Smith,2012,para6)
Smith looks at the baseball industry in a business aspect by labelling professional athletes like Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa who are two legendary baseball players who had an incredible season, where the record for most homeruns were hit, drew the fans attention which helped the publicity and financial standpoints for these clubs (Smith,2012,para3).
The author’s main argument in the article is the use of enhancing the performance of steroids to level the playing field throughout sports, while looking at it in a business aspect and the organizations not having to enforce doping policies.
The author presents the pros towards legalizing steroids in professional sports out looking the athlete performance and everyday drug policy.
In the article the author talks about the baseball era of Melky Cabrera and Bartolo Colon suspended after tested positive for testosterone usage and that US anti-doping agency stripped Lance Armstrong of his seven tour de France titles and banned him from the sport for doping ( Smith,2012,para1).
Smith says that steroids would bring athletes to a higher levelof performance in pitchers to throw harder, homeruns to be hit further, cyclist to go longer and sprinters to run faster than the limits of a human (Smith ,2012,para3)
He also believes that steroids and doping are health risks that athlets undertake just like athletes risk of walking on the field or getting injuried and concused while playing the sport (Smtih,2012,para7)
The author suggested that PED in players in the hall of fame are inducted by fans and some players may not have used PED but got inducted with equal amount of homeruns and hits are not penalized eventhough they were caught up in the doping scandals.
Smith believes athletes are going to take steroids and turn to doping regardless the rules (Smith,2012,para11)
Legalizing steroids, doping and other performance enhances would finally set an even bar, and that would just be the first of many benefits ( Smith,2012,para11)
Smith writes this article very sufficiently on his belief that steroids should be legal in professional sports but can be analyzed in an athlete’s perspective and a business standpoint.
Smith Spoke about “performance enhancing drugs (PED) are outlawed in professional sports that they give users and unfair advantage over the rest of the field”(Smtih,2012,para2). This a weakness argument presented by Smith because the athletes who love the sport and train hard to be where they are would think its unfair that users can be better than them because of the drug. The game would not be the game they loved but a game where certain athletes have super powers.
Smith’s logic towards looking at the business perspective would increase the popularity of the game and would draw more fans to watch. The author uses an effective point by saying “It will make sense to allow steroids in a professional sports from a business standpoint” (Smith,2012,para5).
A well written point that Smith makes that is a double egde sword in his article is that “professional sport organizations currently tasked with managing convoluted anti-doping policies”(Smith,2012,para6) will no longer have to worry about penalizing or having consequences for the athletes who dope, if every athlete is doping.
The organizations would not have a bad reputation in the league. To Smith this is an excellent idea but to the business owners perpective the organizations will have to deal with fines, the media always harassing them about the athlete, and the athletes reputation. For Example, Smith brought up Ryan Braun. Ryan Braun is a popular baseball player but got caught doping and his popularity went down. The fans judged him because of him using and that his career as a baseball player to be fake.
Smith in his article made clear points on steroids being favourable for players to help them perform better .Smith contradicts himself when he states “steroids and doping can pose health risks to the athletes involved, but athletes undertake serious health risks by simply walking onto the field or straddling a bike” (Smith,2012,para7). Smith says this because he knows that steroids have health risks if taken, it is just as he thinks that athletes who leave their house or are at practice impose the same health risk.
point of view.
In conclusion, Smith argues that pro athletes should use steroids and should legalize it because it would enhancing the performance of the athlete to make the level of the playing field even, the organizations do not have to enforce the anti-doping policies and it will make the business of the sport more wealthy.
Do you think that pro athletes should take steroids to help them perform better?
As a fan would you want to watch your favourite players if they were on steroids?