In "We, the Public, Place the Best Athletes on Pedestals," William Moller strongly criticizes the ". . . self-righteous media types who make a living by drumming up indignation from the masses" (Moller, 548). In addition to criticizing the media, Moller also condemns the general public for demonizing professional athletes because ". . . the reason [insert name of a professional athlete] did [or does] steroids is you and me" (Moller, 547). In other words, he claims that society is to blame for athletes ' usage of performance-enhancing drugs because "[w]e, the public, place the best athletes on pedestals, gods on high" (Moller, 547-48). Therefore, Moller argues that you and I are hypocrites because at some point in our lives, we all cheat and
…show more content…
If someone were to offer you a performance-enhancing drug to increase your physical stamina and ability, wouldn 't you give in to get your foot in the door? If you are honest with yourself, you will have answered yes. Why? Because "steroids = bigger muscles = more home runs" (Posnanski 557). Therefore, if you were to produce more home runs, the probability of getting noticed, and signed, by a major league would skyrocket. We do not seem to realize just how many doors open once a baseball player sets foot into the world of Major League Baseball. New opportunities include more money, more praise, more glory, and more product endorsements (which, in turn, equals even more money). With so many players in the minor leagues, just a ladder step below the big guys, no wonder their mouths water at the prospect of increasing everything! In addition, "[a]thletes have much more riding on their decision to cheat than just a game, most notably wealth, status and more willing sex partners" (Pugmire). To restate, it is not only fame and fortune that cause athletes to take amphetamines, steroids or other PEDs, but also social status and a greater amount of sexual partners. When all is said and done, …show more content…
Helen Fisher, an anthropologist at Rutgers University, says that cheating is programmed into our DNA (Pugmire). She also says that we have a tendency to ask ourselves if we can get away with cheating (Pugmire). Now, what, specifically, makes us cheat? Fisher argues that ". . . age, gene variations, and an individual 's upbringing and the potential benefits of cheating influence whether deception will be pursued . . ." (Pugmire). Even more important, why is the usage of PED 's so culturally unacceptable? As technology evolves, shouldn 't sports evolve too? Naysayers: does it make a difference when musicians take drugs? Musicians, writers, artists, etc. are no different from athletes. Through history, they too ". . . have used drugs both legal and illicit in an effort to pull from their minds the creativity they felt was only within their grasp through the use of so-called mind-expanding drugs, many of which are naturally occurring" (Berkovich). For example, Aldous Huxley penned his famous masterpieces (essays) while taking hallucinogenic drugs (Berkovich). Athletes, musicians, writers, and artists are merely using tools of their trade to deliver the best for our bliss and enjoyment. Overall, then, I believe that Moller 's argument is credible, albeit lacking sufficient support. Additionally, he ignores answering the essential question of whether or not sports organizations should modify the rules to legalize the use of illegal stimulants.
If someone were to offer you a performance-enhancing drug to increase your physical stamina and ability, wouldn 't you give in to get your foot in the door? If you are honest with yourself, you will have answered yes. Why? Because "steroids = bigger muscles = more home runs" (Posnanski 557). Therefore, if you were to produce more home runs, the probability of getting noticed, and signed, by a major league would skyrocket. We do not seem to realize just how many doors open once a baseball player sets foot into the world of Major League Baseball. New opportunities include more money, more praise, more glory, and more product endorsements (which, in turn, equals even more money). With so many players in the minor leagues, just a ladder step below the big guys, no wonder their mouths water at the prospect of increasing everything! In addition, "[a]thletes have much more riding on their decision to cheat than just a game, most notably wealth, status and more willing sex partners" (Pugmire). To restate, it is not only fame and fortune that cause athletes to take amphetamines, steroids or other PEDs, but also social status and a greater amount of sexual partners. When all is said and done, …show more content…
Helen Fisher, an anthropologist at Rutgers University, says that cheating is programmed into our DNA (Pugmire). She also says that we have a tendency to ask ourselves if we can get away with cheating (Pugmire). Now, what, specifically, makes us cheat? Fisher argues that ". . . age, gene variations, and an individual 's upbringing and the potential benefits of cheating influence whether deception will be pursued . . ." (Pugmire). Even more important, why is the usage of PED 's so culturally unacceptable? As technology evolves, shouldn 't sports evolve too? Naysayers: does it make a difference when musicians take drugs? Musicians, writers, artists, etc. are no different from athletes. Through history, they too ". . . have used drugs both legal and illicit in an effort to pull from their minds the creativity they felt was only within their grasp through the use of so-called mind-expanding drugs, many of which are naturally occurring" (Berkovich). For example, Aldous Huxley penned his famous masterpieces (essays) while taking hallucinogenic drugs (Berkovich). Athletes, musicians, writers, and artists are merely using tools of their trade to deliver the best for our bliss and enjoyment. Overall, then, I believe that Moller 's argument is credible, albeit lacking sufficient support. Additionally, he ignores answering the essential question of whether or not sports organizations should modify the rules to legalize the use of illegal stimulants.